I 


B 


; 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  **> 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agneiv  Coll,  on  Baptism,  No. 


OPEN  COMMUNION 

SHOWN  TO  BE 

UNSCRIPTURAL   AND    DELETERIOUS. 

BY  JOHN   L.   WALLER,   L.L.  D. 

WITH    AN 

INTRODUCTORY   ESSAY. 

BY  D.  R.  CAMPBELL,  L.L.  D. 

AND   AN 

APPENDIX. 

BY   THE    EDITOR. 


TO     WHICH    IS     ADDED, 

A  HISTORY  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

BY  JOHN  L.  WALLER,  L.L  D. 


LOUISVILLE,  KY: 
PUBLISHED  BY  G.  W.  ROBERTSON, 

KENTUCKY   BAPTIST   BOOK   CONCERN. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1859,  by 

J.    E.    FA  It  NAM, 

Ir.  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the 
District  of  Kentucky. 


HANN4  <fc  Co., 

Triutsrs  anil  Stereotyp6rs. 

LonsviLtz,  Ky. 


NOTE  BY  THE  EDITOR. 


A  liberal  per  centage  upon  all  copies  of  this  work  that 
shall  be  sold,  has  been  secured  to  the  orphan  children  of  the 
author.  This  fact,  it  is  presumed,  will,  independent  of  the 
merits  of  the  book,  procure  for  the  publishers  an  extensive 
circulation  of  this,  and  of  other  volumes  of  Dr.  "Waller's 
writings,  now  ready  for  the  press. 


J.  E.  FARNAM. 


Georgetown,  Ky.,  October,  1858. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/opencommunionshoOOwall 


INTRODUCTORY  ESSAY. 


The  leading  object  of  the  lamented  author  of  this  little 
volume,  was  to  furnish  his  own  denomination  with  a  succinct 
defence  of  their  practice  in  restricting  the  privilege  of  sacra- 
mental communion  to  such  as  belong  to  their  own  churches. 
As  collateral  justification  of  this  practice,  he  has  also  here 
furnished  a  refutation  of  the  Pedo-baptist  view  of  the  ques- 
tions relating  to  the  subjects  and  mode  of  baptism,  showing 
that  that  view  is  an  innovation  on  the  spirit  and  teach- 
ings of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  but  reasonable  to  believe 
that  had  the  author  himself  been  permitted  to  arrange  and 
give  the  finishing  touch  to  the  materials  of  the  work,  it 
would  have  been,  in  some  respects,  at  least,  more  complete 
and  satisfactory.  Still,  the  editor  has  evidently  prepared 
and  arranged  the  materials  in  his  possession  to  the  best 
advantage. 

The  discussion  on  Communion,  is  a  review  of  the  posi- 
tions and  reasonings  of  Kobert  Hall,  who  held  that  "each 
particular  Church  is  to  tho  Universal  Church,  as  a  part  is  to 
the  whole;"  and,  consequently,  that  "no  Church  has  a  right 
to  establish  terms  of  communion  which  are  not  terms  of 
aalvation."  The  erroneousness  of  these  positions,  and  the 
false  reasonings  founded  upon  them,  Dr.  Waller  has  suc- 
cessfully exposed.  Nothing  farther  seems  necessary — tho 
overthrow  is  complete,  final. 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

Able  as  is  this  whole  discussion,  however,  had  Dr.  Waller 
lived  until  the  present,  he  would  doubtless  have  taken  a  much 
wider  range  on  the  communion  question.  The  subject  is 
daily  assuming  a  more  imposing  and  important  aspect.  The 
signs  of  the  times  indicate  tbat  it  is  destined  to  become  the 
great  line  of  discrimination  between  the  true  and  the  false — 
between  the  real  and  the  nominal  followers  of  Christ.  Con- 
centration, union,  a  second  catholic  or  Universal  Church,  is 
the  goal  to  which  the  growing  tendencies  lead.  The  indis- 
pensable condition  of  such  consolidation  is  concession — 
minor  differences,  non-essentials,  must  be  kept  in  the  back 
ground.  As  the  range  of  the  movement  widens,  as  the  dis- 
tinct and  diverse  elements  sought  to  be  combined,  are 
increased,  so  these  non-essentials  must  multiply  until  the 
stock  of  accepted  truth  must  be  small  indeed.  The  process 
in  this  direction  is  already  actively  at  work.  The  foundations 
are  being  silently  laid,  broad  and  deep,  in  the  workings  and 
tendencies  of  such  organizations  as  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  the  American  Bible  Society,  the  American  Tract 
Society,  the  American  Sunday  School  Union,  the  American 
and  Foreign  Christian  Union,  and  the  Evangelical  Alliance. 
This  last  is  not,  improbably,  the  nucleus  of  the  grand  Protes- 
tant Catholic  Church,  into  which  all  the  sects  must  finally 
merge.  All  of  these  bodies  operate  on  the  principle  of  ignoring 
what  is  rather  freely  called,  non-essentials.  And  the  amount 
ignored  among  them,  taken  altogether,  is  neither  small  nor 
unimportant.  In  the  operation  of  such  bodies,  leading  minds 
become  accustomed  to  regard  the  gain  secured  by  the  conces- 
sion, and  the  consequent  apparent  increase  of  power,  as  vastly 
more  than  the  loss  sustained  in  the  amount  of  truth  sacrificed. 
These  bodies,  moreover,  soon  become  sources  of  controlling 
influence,  modifying  the  views  and  regulating  the  practice  not 


INTRODUCTION.  Vll 

only  of  those  committed  to  them,  but  through  them,  of  the 
masses  beyond  them.  Success  becomes  the  watchword — 
combination  indispensable.  Men,  talent,  learning,  counsel, 
money,  agency,  energy,  become  the  real  dependence  —  truth 
only  secondary.  It  can  easily  be  accommodated  to  the  vary- 
ing necessities  of  the  emergency;  and  men  may,  by  and  by, 
feel  as  free  to  legislate  in  divine,  as  in  secular  truth. 

This  tendency  of  things  has  already  begun  to  show  a  dis- 
position to  intrench  on  the  principle  of  Scriptural  Com- 
munion. Until  recently,  Pedo-baptists,  to  a  man,  insisted 
on  baptism  as  indispensable  to  a  place  at  the  Lord's 
table.  There  are  indications  now,  however,  of  a  radical 
change  in  this  particular.  The  question  is  already  openly 
and  forcibly  discussed  in  Presbyterian  journals,  whether 
baptism  should  be  required  as  a  pre-requisite  to  communion. 
A  well  known  and  vigorous  writer  maintains  the  negative, 
and,  evidently,  not  without  the  confidence  of  an  existing  and 
increasing  sympathy  among  his  brethren.  This  writer  is 
already  prepared  to  admit  the  Quaker,  an  avowed  unbeliever 
in  baptism,  to  the  table  of  the  Lord.  This  is  startling  and 
significant,  coming  from  such  a  source.  Many  of  the  Meth- 
odist clergy  have  for  years  been  ignoring  baptism  as  a  con- 
dition of  communion.  It  has,  in  some  places,  become 
a  very  common  practice  among  them  to  urge  the  duty  of 
communing  as  a  means  of  conversion.  This  we  regard  as 
a  two-fold  evil.  It  first  displaces,  and  then  perverts,  a  sacred 
institution.  Even  the  "current  reformation"  seems  to 
hesitate  in  places  whether  the  sacrifice  of  baptism  might  not 
be  a  reasonable  price  for  "union,"  provided  it  can  not  be 
procured  at  a  less  cost. 

"What,  then,  is  the  duty  of  Baptists  in  the  presence  of  such 
signs  of  defection?     They  have  ever  been  the  fast  friends  ol 


Viii  INTRODUCTION. 

Scripture  truth  and  Scripture  practice.  Shall  they  give  way 
now?  May  it  never  be.  In  the  second  and  third  centuries^ 
tendencies,  not  unlike  those  now  at  work,  matured  into  a 
catholic  or  general  church.  It  became  catholic,  however, 
at  the  expense  of  much  of  the  spirit  and  substance  of  truth. 
Against  these  unhallowed  tendencies  our  ancestors,  in  the 
faith,  had  to  raise  a  warning  voice,  and  many  of  them  proved 
before  the  struggle  was  over,  that  they  could  die  for  the  truth. 
If  the  present  tendencies  continue,  and  the  end  aimed  at  is 
reached,  our  posterity  may  not  long  expect  to  escape  from 
the  like  sorrows  and  sufferings  again. 

Our  duty  to  continue  faithful  to  our  communion  prin- 
ciples, becomes  urgent  from  another  consideration.  Not 
only  is  communion  sought  at  the  expense  of  baptism,  but 
also  at  the  expense  of  doctrines,  which,  in  our  view,  are 
essential  to  salvation.  The  Pelagian,  who  denies  human 
depravity,  and  consequently  the  renewing  agency  of  the 
Spirit  in  regeneration;  the  Unitarian,  the  Arian,  and  the 
Universalist,  who  deny  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  the 
Savior;  the  believer  in  baptismal  regeneration,  in  baptismal 
remission,  in  sprinkling  for  baptism,  or  in  no  baptism  at  all; 
and  some,  whose  system  of  faith  is  a  compound  of  all  these, 
are  clamorous  of  general  communion  at  the  Lord's  table. 
Such  errorists  have  nothing  to  lose,  but  every  thing  to  gain, 
by  such  a  course.  Their  cry  against  restricted  communion 
is  a  species  of  popular  self-defence.  They  are  anxious  to 
obtain  the  sanction  of  those  who  hold  to  a  faith  more  pure 
and  consistent  than  theirs,  for  their  errors.  But  shall  Bap- 
tists, a  people  who  have  ever  received  the  whole  testimony 
of  God,  and  who  have,  in  every  age,  experienced  much  oppo- 
sition for  doing  so,  be,  by  any  means,  induced  either  to  wink 
at,  or  sanction  in  the  least,  such  unscriptural  and  pernicious 


INTRODUCTION.  IX 

dogmas?  Shall  they  ever  surrender  the  only  scriptural 
position,  that  the  true  believer  alone,  who  is  immersed  upon 
a  profession  of  his  faith,  and  received  into  a  church  of  like 
faith  and  practice  with  their  own,  is  a  proper  subject  for  the 
communion  table?  Never,  never!  This  "old  landmark" 
they  will  never  "remove."  They  will  never  "sell"  the  truth 
for  any  considerable  expediency. 

This  little  volume,  an  earnest  of  others  which  are  to  follow, 
by  our  lamented  brother,  will  tend  to  strengthen  the  people, 
for  whom  he  so  faithfully  and  so  ably  labored,  both  in  the 
truth  and  practice  of  the  faith  in  which  he,  himself,  lived 
and  died.  May  it  command  a  large  sale,  and  be  widely  and 
abundantly  blessed. 

D.    R.    CAMPBELL. 
Georgetown,  Kr.,  November,  1858. 


c 

I  T- 


rPi. 


i 


OPEN  COMMUNION 


y* 

- 


SHOWN   TO   BE 


UNSCRIPTURAL  AND  DELETERIOUS. 


The  world  has  all  along  been  disposed  to  quarrel  with  the 
severe  simplicity  of  Jesus  and  his  institutions.  To  the  Jews 
he  was  as  a  root  springing  out  of  dry  ground,  without  form 
or  comeliness.  There  was  no  beauty  in  him  that  they  should 
desire  him.  Men  love  pomp  and  show  and  circumstance, 
even  in  religion.  Nay,  they  would  rather  endure  the  greatest 
torture,  perform  distant  and  dangerous  pilgrimages,  inflict 
upon  themselves  any  pennance,  and  make  any  sacrifices, 
under  the  delusion  that  thus  they  can  propitiate  the  favor 
of  Heaven,  than  to  be  saved  on  the  terms  of  the  gospel, 
which  are  easy  and  light. 

The  Messiah  established  a  kingdom,  not  of  this  world. 
He  had  no  temple  made  with  hands.  He  wore  no  sacerdotal 
nor  royal  robes.  He  erected  no  altar,  burnt  no  incense, 
offered  no  beasts,  or  birds,  or  fruits,  in  sacrifice.  He  insti- 
tuted no  ceremonial  pageantry.  In  this  respect  he  discarded 
all  precedent,  rejected  all  experience,  and  refused  to  pander 
to  the  tastes  and  prejudices  of  mankind.  He  taught  the 
great  truths  of  his  religion,  without  the  symbols  and  signs 
which  had  distinguished  the  divine  institutions  of  the  Mosaic 


12  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BR 

dispensation,  and  which  imparted  great  lessons  by  sensible 
objects.  All  the  religions  on  earth  gave  instructions  in  the 
same  way.  Jesus  used  no  such  methods,  except  in  the  two 
ordinances  of  Baptism  and  the  Supper. 

These  two  ordinances  have  ever  been  too  simple  in  the 
mode  of  their  administration,  too  plain  and  specific  in  their 
designs,  to  suit  that  love  of  ostentation,  and  to  gratify  that 
thirst  for  the  marvelous  and  the  mysterious,  which  men 
delight  to  find  in  the  visible  and  to  fancy  in  the  invisible. 
Hence,  a  pseudo  church  has  invested  these  institutions,  so 
unpretending  in  the  Scriptures,  with  an  immense  parade  of 
ceremonial  and  awful  and  even  miraculous  significance. 
The  Supper,  which  is  our  theme,  was  perverted  even  in  the 
apostolic  age.  The  Church  in  Corinth  made  it  a  carnal 
instead  of  a  spiritual  feast.  Its  members  did  not  discern  in 
its  symbols  a  representation  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Redeemer.  They  converted  the  cup  of  blessing  into  the  cup 
of  foul  and  evil  spirits.  They  ate  and  drank  condemnation 
to  themselves.  In  the  subsequent  age  it  was  regarded  as  a 
mystery  kindred  to  those  of  the  Eleusinian,  and  was  celebrated 
with  a  secresy  that  could  not  be  invaded  by  the  uninitiated 
without  profanity  and  guilt.  And  when  Popery  was  revealed, 
the  multitude  were  taught  to  suppose  that  priestly  mummery 
changed  the  bread  and  the  wine  into  the  Son  of  God,  and 
that  they  were  to  be  worshipped  and  honored  as  the  Divinity 
upon  the  platter  and  in  the  cup.  And  to  this  day,  blind  and 
superstitious  millions,  perhaps  a  large  majority  of  professed 
Christians,  are  the  deluded  victims  of  this  gross  folly  and 
idolatry. 

It  is  important  that  we  should  observe  this  ordinance  in 
all  things  precisely  as  it  was  given  to  us  by  the  Lcrd.  We 
have  no  right  to  add  to  or  to  take  from  it.     It  derives  all  its 


UNSCRIPTURAI.   AND    DELETERIOUS.  13 

appropriateness  and  significancy  from  the  fact  of  its  being 
instituted  by  a  divine  command.  Without  such  a  command, 
to  break  bread  and  pour  out  wine  as  emblems  of  the  broken 
body  and  spilled  blood  of  the  Savior,  would  be  as  unauthorized 
as  a  modern  love-feast,  and  as  impious  as  pilgrimages,  or  the 
adoration  of  dead  mens'  bones.  The  whole  intent  and  manner 
of  the  Supper  are  clearly  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures.  These 
are  obligatory.  These  have  the  sanction  of  Heaven.  These 
we  may  receive  and  follow.  God  requires  these  things  at  our 
hands,  and  nothing  more.  He  that  observes  more  as  essential 
to  the  ordinance,  disobeys  and  insults  Him  who  ordained  the 
Supper.  He  virtually  charges  the  Savior  with  being  incom- 
petent or  unwilling  to  perfect  his  work  of  mediation  —  of  com- 
pleting the  laws  and  regulations  of  his  kingdom.  If  we  may 
improve  upon  one  of  the  divine  laws,  we  may  upon  all;  and 
thus,  instead  of  Jesus,  be  ourselves  the  law-giver  in  Zion. 

Eloquent  declamation  from  the  pulpit,  and  much  eulogium 
from  the  press,  in  behalf  of  what  is  denominated  Open  Com- 
munion, have  been  most  prominent  in  the  religious  discus- 
sions of  the  present  century;  yet  it  never  has  been  shown 
wherein  the  Baptists  have  departed  from  the  strict  letter  of 
the  law  which  the  Savior  enacted  for  the  regulation  of  his 
Supper.  The  Bible  is  seldom  appealed  to  in  this  controversy. 
The  advocates  of  Open  Communion  have  studiously,  as  a 
general  thing,  evaded  the  law  in  the  case,  and  have  appealed 
to  the  prejudices  of  the  masses.  The  cry  of  inconsistency, 
uncharitablenoss,  bigotry,  selfishness,  &c.,  are  clamorously 
vociferated;  and  the  million  are  sought  to  be  swayed  by 
these,  rather  than  by  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law. 
Now,  we  intend  to  examine  the  pretensions'  of  Open  Com- 
munion, and  to  demonstrate  that  Baptist  Close  Communion 
is  the  Bible  Communion. 


14  OPEN   COMMUNION   SHOWN   TO   BE 

The  buppcr  was  instituted  by  our  Lord  the  night  in  which 
he  was  betrayed.  The  Evangelists  give  this  account  of  its 
institution.  Mat.  xxvi.  26,  27:  "Jesus  took  bread,  and 
blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples,  and  said, 
Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave 
thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all  of  it;  for 
this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament  which  is  shed  for 
many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Mark  xiv.  22-24:  "Jesus 
took  bread,  and  blessed,  and  brake,  and  gave  to  them,  and 
said,  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and 
when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  gave  to  them,  and  they  all 
drank  of  it.  And  he  said  unto  them,  This  is  my  blood  of  the 
New  Testament  which  is  shed  for  many."  Luke  xxii.  19,  20 : 
"And  he  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake,  and  gave 
unto  them,  saying,  This  is  my  body  which  is  given  for  you  ; 
this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  Likewise  also  the  cup  after 
supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood 
which  is  shed  for  you."  The  Apostle  Paul  thus  speaks  of 
the  institution,  1  Cor.  xi.  23-29:  "For  I  have  received  of 
the  Lord,  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread, 
and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  and  said,  Take,  eat ; 
this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you ;  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup, 
when  he  had  supped,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament 
in  my  blood ;  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it  in  remembrance 
of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup, 
ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  until  he  come.  Wherefore, 
whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  or  drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord, 
unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord.  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat 
of  that  bread  and  drink  of  that  cup;  for  he  that  eateth  and 


tTNSCRIPTURAL   AND   DELETERIOUS.  15 

drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  condemnation  to 
himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's  body." 

The  design  of  the  ordinance  is  emphatically  declared  in 
these  passages,  to  be,  to  keep  in  remembrance  the  Savior — 
to  show  forth  his  death  until  he  come.  Its  design  has  just 
this  extent,  and  no  more,  the  Savior  and  the  Apostle  attest. 
But  more  of  this  herafter. 

The  celebrated  Robert  Hall,  in  his  efforts  to  justify  open 
communion,  employed  much  rhetoric  and  great  ingenuity  to 
show  that,  as  this  institution  was  established  before  Christian 
Baptism,  therefore  baptism  was  not  essential  to  its  participa- 
tion. He  was  an  open  Communion  Baptist,  and  believed 
that  we  ought  to  invite  Pedo-baptists  to  the  Lord  s  table. 
But  this  he  knew  to  be  impossible,  if  baptism  is  a  prerequi- 
site to  the  Supper.  As  a  Baptist,  he  regards  the  baptism  of 
infants  as  a  human  invention  and  a  papal  relict;  and  he 
esteemed  sprinkling  as  a  most  ridiculous  burlesque  of  a 
sacred  ordinance.  Hence  he  was  forced  to  discard  what  had 
always  been  considered,  by  all  Christians,  as  settled  in  the 
Scriptures,  that  individuals  must  be  baptized  before  they 
come  to  the  Lord's  table.  To  sustain  this  novel  and  start- 
ling position — a  position  to  the  maintenance  of  which  he 
was  forced  by  the  desperate  condition  of  his  cause — he 
enters  upon  an  elaborate  argument  to  prove  that  the  disci- 
ples, when  the  Supper  was  instituted,  had  only  received  the 
preparatory  baptism,  or  the  baptism  of  John,  which  was  not 
Christian  baptism,  and  which  was  superseded  and  annulled 
by  the  baptism  ordained  in  the  gospel  commission.  He 
concluded,  from  this,  that  Christian  baptism  was  not  essen- 
tial to  the  Supper.  We  will  not  pause  here  to  discuss  John's 
baptism.  It  is  not  necessary  to  our  argument.  We  plant 
ourselves  on  the  commission,  and  shall  contend,  in  opposi- 


16  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

tion  to  all  gainsayers,  that  in  the  Gospel  Commission — the 
only  law  in  the  Bible  by  which  ministers  baptize  into  the 
name  of  the  Trinity — baptism  is  placed  before  the  Supper; 
and  that  no  one  can  change  this  order  without  changing  a 
divine  law.  The  commission,  Matthew  xxvii.  19,  20,  "Go 
ye,  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatso- 
ever I  have  commanded  you:  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  is  the  divine  directory,  com- 
manding, first,  to  "make  disciples  of  all  nations;"  second,  to 
baptise  them  into  the  name  of  the  Trinity;  and  third,  to  teach 
them  to  observe  what  Jesus  had  commanded.  He  had  now 
arisen  from  the  dead,  and  was  about  to  ascend  to  heaven. 
Among  the  things  he  had  commanded,  was  to  observe  his 
Supper — "this  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  This  commis- 
sion is  so  plain  that  no  one  can  misunderstand  it.  He  that 
comes  to  the  Lord's  table,  who  is  not  a  disciple,  baptized  into 
the  divine  name,  violates  the  commandment  of  Him  to  whom 
is  committed  all  power  in  heaven  and  upon  earth.  The  law 
is  express,  positive,  and  particular;  and  all  Christians,  for 
eighteen  centuries,  were  perfectly  united  in  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  law.  The  open  Communion  Baptists,  less  than 
a  century  ago,  were  the  first  to  call  it  in  question.  Robert 
Hall  is  the  only  man  of  any  note  who  ever  seriously  disputed 
the  settled  practice  of  all  Christendom,  from  the  ascension  of 
the  Messiah  to  the  present  time ;  and  his  opposition,  although 
clothed  in  great  vigor  and  beauty  of  language,  is  not  remarka- 
ble for  logical  acumen  or  elear  and  convincing  exposition  of 
the  Scriptures.  His  effort  to  prove  his  position,  by  the 
assumption  that  this  ordinance  was  instituted  before  that  of 
Christian  baptism,  utterly  fails  of  any  valuable  purpose  in 


UNSCRIPTURAL   AND    DELETERIOUS.  17 

his  argument,  inasmuch  as  we  could  grant  his  position,  and 
then  demonstrate  its  utter  worthlessness,  from  the  plain  and 
specific  requirements  of  the  Scriptures.  But  enough  of  Mr. 
Hall  for  the  present. 

We  have  said,  that  from  the  beginning  all  Christians  have 
concurred  in  the  opinion  that,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
only  the  baptized  disciple  ought  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  It  is  very  certain,  that  all  the  accounts  we  have  of 
its  administration  in  the  New  Testament,  demonstrate  con- 
clusively that  such  was  the  apostolic  custom.  On  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  Acts  ii.  41,  42,  we  learn  that  "they  that  gladly 
received  his  word,  were  baptized,  and  the  same  day  there  were 
added  about  three  thousand  souls.  And  they  continued 
steadfastly  in  the  apostles'  doctrine,  and  fellowship,  and  in 
breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers."  The  breaking  of  the 
bread  was  by  the  baptized  disciples.  In  Acts  xx.  7,  we  read: 
"And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  tbe  disciples 
came  together  to  break  bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them, 
ready  to  depart  on  the  morrow."  They  were  disciples, 
accustomed  to  meet  together — a  Church  —  that  break  bread. 
In  1  Cor.  x.  1-4,  we  read:  "Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not 
that  ye  should  be  ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers  were 
under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea;  and  were 
all  baptized  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea;  and  all 
ate  the  same  spiritual  meat;  and  all  drank  the  same  spiritual 
drink:  for  they  drank  of  that  spiritual  Rock  that  followed 
them;  and  that  Rock  was  Christ."  "Now,"  argues  the  apos- 
tle, verse  11,  "all  these  things  happened  unto  them  for 
examples;  and  they  are  written  for  our  admonition,  upon 
whom  the  ends  of  the  ages  are  come."  In  other  words,  let 
us  learn  this  lesson  from  this  portion  of  sacred  history  —  let 
us,  who  have  been  baptized  into  the  name  of  tbe  Father,  and 


18  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN   TO    BE 

of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  eat  bread  and  drink 
wine  in  remembrance  of  the  Savior,  and  to  show  forth  his 
death  until  he  come,  take  heed  unto  our  ways;  for  with  many 
of  the  Israelites  God  was  not  well  pleased,  although,  by  his 
own  right  hand,  he  brought  them  out  of  Egypt,  and  sus- 
tained them  by  miracle.  The  apostle  clearly  regarded  it  as 
an  ordinance  in  the  Church,  as  is  to  be  inferred  from  the 
passages  just  quoted,  and  as  he  emphatically  declares  in  the 
11th  chapter,  18th  verse,  where  he  reproves  the  Corinthians 
for  the  disorderly  and  disgraceful  manner  of  celebrating  the 
Lord's  Supper,  viz:  "For  first  of  all,  when  ye  come  together 
in  the  Church,  [jv  to  £XxX*)tfta,  in  the  Congregation"],  I  hear 
that  there  be  divisions  among  you."  Again,  verse  22: 
"What?  have  ye  not  houses  [o^iaj]  to  eat  and  to  drink  in? 
or  despise  ye  the  Church  \jxx%r\dt.a,s,  Congregation]  of  God?" 
This  settles  the  apostolic  custom.  The  Lord's  Supper  waf 
celebrated  by  members  of  the  Church,  and  all  Church  mem 
bors,  in  that  age,  were  baptized  disciples.  And  here  we 
might  rest  this  part  of  our  argument;  for,  with  all  true 
Protestants,  who  regard  the  Bible  alone  as  their  religion,  one 
scriptural  precept,  or  one  example  of  apostolic  practice,  is 
enough,  and  ample  to  settle  every  question  of  the  sort  under 
consideration.  But,  as  this  is  a  matter  of  interpretation, 
we  must  defer  to  precedent,  and  sustain  our  position  by 
authority. 

And  that  authority,  as  before  said,  is  the  unanimous 
opinion  of  all  Christians,  every  where  and  in  every  age,  until 
within  the  last  fifty  years,  that  Baptism  must  precede  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Wall,  in  his  History  of  Infant  Baptism, 
speaking  of  the  practice  of  the  ancient  Christians,  says: 
"The  baptized  person  was  quickly  after  his  baptism  admitted 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper.     This  was  always,  and  in 


UNSCRIPTURAJ,  AND  DELETERIOUS.  J!) 

all  places,  used  in  the  case  of  adult  persons. "*  Further 
along  in  the  same  chapter,  he  says:  "Among  all  the  absur- 
dities that  ever  were  held,  none  ever  maintained  that  any 
person  should  partake  of  the  Communion  before  he  was 
baptized."  f 

Justin  Martyr,  who  flourished  A.  D.  240,  in  his  second 
Apology,  after  describing  the  Supper,  says:  "And  this  food 
is  called  the  Eucharist,  which  it  is  unlawful  for  any  to 
partake  of,  unless  he  believes  the  things  taught  by  us  to  be 
true,  and  has  been  washed  in  the  bath  of  regeneration  for 
the  remission  of  sins."  * 

Lord  High  Chancellor  King,  in  his  History  of  the  Primi- 
tive Church,  says: 

"As  for  the  persons  communicating,  they  were  not  indif- 
ferently all  that  professed  the  Christian  faith,  as  Origen 
writes:  'It  doth  not  belong  to  every  one  to  eat  of  this  bread 
and  to  drink  of  this  cup.'  But  they  were  only  such  as  were 
in  the  number  of  the  faithful  —  'such  as  were  baptized  and 
received  both  the  credentials  and  practicals  of  Christianity.' 
That  is,  who  believed  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  and 
led  a  holy  and  pious  life.  Such  as  these,  and  none  else, 
were  permitted  to  communicate.  Now,  since  none  but  the 
faithful  were  admitted,  it  follows  that  the  catechumens  and 
the  penitents  were  excluded;  the  catechumens,  because  they 
were  not  yet  baptized,  for  baptism  always  preceded  the 
Lord's  Supper,  as  Justin  Martyr  says:  'It  is  not  lawful  for 
any  one  to  partake  of  the  sacramental  food  except  he  be 
baptized;'  the  penitents,  because  for  their  sins  they  were 
cast  out  of  the  church,  and  whilst  excluded  from  the  peace 
thereof,  they  could  not  partake  of  that  peace,  but  were  to  be 
driven  therefrom,  and  not  admitted  thereto,  'till  they  had 
*Part  2,  chap.  9,  sect.  15.      J  Same  sect.,  paragraph  4. 


20  OPEN    COMMUNION   SHOWN    TO    BE 

fully  satisfied  for  their  faults,  lest  otherwise  they  should 
profane  the  body  of  the  Lord,  and  drink  hiss  cup  unworthily, 
and  so  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.'  Hence, 
when  the  other  parts  of  divine  worship  were  ended,  and  the 
celebration  of  the  eucharist  was  to  begin,  the  catechumens, 
penitents,  and  all,  except  the  communicants,  were  to  depart, 
as  Tertullian  says  thereof,  'pious  initiations  drive  away  the 
profane.'  "* 

Neander,  in  his  great  Church  History,  speaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  in  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  says: 

"At  this  celebration,  as  may  easily  be  concluded,  no  one 
could  be  present  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  Christian 
Church,  and  incorporated  into  it  by  the  rite  of  baptism. "f 

Speaking  of  the  practice  of  all  Christians  several  centuries 
later,  he  says : 

"With  reference  to  these  two  constituent  portions  of  the 
church  assemblies,  the  catechumens  and  baptized  believers, 
the  whole  service  was  divided  into  two  portions:  one  in 
which  the  catechumens  were  allowed  to  join,  embracing  the 
reading  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  sermon,  the  prevailing 
didactic  portion;  and  the  other,  in  which  the  baptized  alone 
could  take  part,  embracing  whatever  was  designed  to  repre- 
sent the  fellowship  of  believers — the  communion  and  all  the 
prayers  of  the  church  which  preceded  it. "J 

But  we  need  not  multiply  authorities.  It  is  a  thing  made 
out  and  conceded  without  debate,  that  the  Christians  every- 
where and  of  every  persuasion,  in  all  ages,  —  a  few  free  com- 
munion Baptists  alone  excepted, — have  declared  that  bap- 
tism, according  to  the  Scriptures,  must  precede  the  Lord's 
Supper.     The  formulas  of  the  different  denominations,  with- 

*  American  edition  of  1811,  pp.  242,  243. 

t  Vol.  1.  p.  327,  Ind.  American  «dition.     i  Vol.  2,  pp.  324,  326. 


UNSCRIPTURAL   AND   DELETERIOUS.  21 

out  a  single  exception,  place  Baptism  before  the  Supper. 
This  is  true  of  Papists,  Protestants,  Greeks,  Armenians,  and 
Ethiopians.  It  would  hardly  seem  necessary,  then,  to 
pause  and  contest  the  point  with  those  of  our  brethren  who, 
to  sustain  themselves,  are  forced  to  confront,  in  hostile 
array,  the  long  settled  doctrine  of  the  Christian  world — who 
have  to  trample  under  foot  the  creeds  and  liturgies  of  all 
churches,  in  order  to  reach  the  tables  of  those  with  whom 
they  wish  to  commune.  But  we  have  no  disposition  to  treat 
them  with  contempt.  We  will,  therefore,  notice  their  argu- 
ment as  presented  by  Robert  Hall,  their  chief  captain. 

Free  Communion  Baptists  not  only  reject  the  doctrine  and 
practice  of  all  Christians,  ancient  and  modern,  from  the 
apostolic  age  until  the  present  time,  but  they  contemn  the 
doctrine  and  example  of  the  apostles  themselves.  Says 
Robert  Hall:  "The  apostles,  it  is  acknowledged,  admitted 
uone  to  the  Lord's  supper  but  such  as  were  previously  bap- 
tized;"* and  he  had  just  before  declared  baptism  to  be  im- 
mersion, of  which  "rational  and  accountable  agents"  are 
"the  only  fit  subjects."  He  declares  that  the  apostles  could 
not  admit  an  unbaptized  person,  because  such  an  one  in 
that  age  "must  either  have  neglected  an  acknowledged  pre- 
cept, and  thus  evinced  a  mind  destitute  of  principle ;  or,  he 
must  have  set  the  authority  of  the  apostles  at  defiance,  and 
thus  have  classed  with  parties  of  the  worst  description. "f 
The  main  question  to  be  adjusted  with  Free  Communion 
Baptists  is,  Shall  we  depart  from  the  precept  and  example  of 
the  apostles?  Here  is  the  issue.  Mr.  Hall  attempts  to  justify 
this  departure.  He  brings  all  the  force  of  his  logic,  all  the 
splendor  of  his  diction,  and  all  the  enrapturing  beauty  of 
hia  declamation,  to  sustain  this  solitary  point.     We  will  ex- 

*  Hall's  Works,  Harper's  edition,  1838,  vol.  2,  p.  213.     f  H>-  P-  214. 


22  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    UK 

amine  his  positions.  In  subverting  them,  we  bring  utter 
destruction  upon  the  strongholds  of  free  communion  as 
advocated  by  Baptists. 

Before  we  proceed,  it  becomes  us  to  pause  and  check  the 
exultation  of  our  Pedo-baptist  brethren  in  finding  so  able  an 
advocate  of  their  principles  among  the  Baptists  as  Robert 
Hall.  If  they  will  listen,  we  will  turn  their  joy  into  sorrow. 
Mr.  Hall  is  no  defender  of  their  views.  He  mercilessly 
decapitates  their  whole  system.  He  abhors  from  his  soul 
infant  baptism.  He  scorns  with  infinite  disgust  sprinkling 
or  pouring  as  a  mode  of  baptism.  He  rejects  all  Pedo-bap- 
tism  with  a  decision  as  emphatic,  and  with  a  disgust  as 
supreme,  as  he  does  the  other  inventions  and  abominations 
of  Popery.  If  the  question,  in  his  esteem,  hinged  on  the 
baptismal  question,  no  man  more  fearlessly  than  he,  would 
have  defended  the  doctrine  of  close  communion.  Nay,  as 
already  shown,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  argue,  that  if  Pedo- 
baptism  had  existed  in  the  primitive  and  pure  days  of  the 
Church,  it  would  have  been  spurned  by  the  apostles  from 
communion  as  a  monstrous  evil  and  sin.  In  a  word,  he  re- 
garded the  Pedo-baptists  as  nnbaptized,  and  as  nnbaptized 
persons,  he  was  willing  to  admit  them  to  the  Lord's  table, 
scriptural  precept  and  example  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing. After  stating  that  the  Baptists  regard  infant 
baptism  as  "a  mere  human  invention,"  he  says: 

"It  is  not  my  intention  to  attempt  the  defense  of  that 
class  of  Christians  [the  Baptists],  though  their  views  are 
entirely  in  accordance  with  my  own;  one  consequence,  how- 
ever, necessarily  results.  Wo  are  compelled  by  virtue  of 
them  to  look  upon  the  great  mass  of  our  fellow-Christians  as 
unbaptized.  On  no  other  ground  can  we  maintain  our  prin- 
ciples or  justify  our  conduct.     Hence  it  has  been  inferred, 


UNSCRIPTURAL   AND  DELETERIOUS.  23 

too  hastily  in  my  opinion,  that  we  are  bound  to  abstain  from 
their  communion,  whatever  judgment  we  may  form  of  their 
sincerity  and  piety.  Baptism,  it  is  alleged,  is,  under  all  pos- 
sible circumstances,  an  indispensable  term  of  communion; 
and  however  highly  we  may  esteem  many  of  our  Pedo-baptist 
brethren,  yet,  as  we  can  not  but  deem  them  as  unbaptized,  we 
must  of  necessity  consider  them  as  disqualified  for  an  ap- 
proach to  the  Lord's  table.  It  is  evident  that  this  reasoning 
rests  entirely  on  the  assumption  that  baptism  is  invariably  a 
necessary  condition  of  communion — an  opinion  which  it  is 
not  surprising  the  Baptists  should  have  embraced,  since  it 
has  long  passed  current  in  the  Christian  world,  and  been 
received  by  nearly  all  denominations  of  Christians.  *  *  * 
The  wide  circulation  of  this  doctrine  ought  undoubtedly  to 
have  the  effect  of  softening  the  severity  of  censure  on  that 
conduct  (however  singular  it  may  appear)  which  is  its  neces- 
sary result.  Such  is  that  of  the  great  majority  of  the  Bap- 
tists in  confining  their  communion  to  those  whom  they  deem 
baptized;  wherein  they  act  precisely  on  the  same  principle 
with  all  other  Christians,  who  assume  it  for  granted  that 
baptism  is  an  essential  preliminary  to  the  reception  of  the 
sacrament.  The  point  on  which  they  differ  is  the  nature  of 
that  institution,  which  we  place  in  immersion,  and  of  which 
we  suppose  rational  and  accountable  agents  the  only  fit  sub- 
jects. This  opinion,  combined  with  the  other  generally 
received  one,  that  none  are  entitled  to  receive  the  Eucharist 
but  such  as  have  been  baptized,  leads  inevitably  to  the  prac- 
tice which  seems  so  singular  and  gives  so  much  offense  —  the 
restricting  of  communion  to  our  own  denomination.  Let  it 
be  admitted  that  baptism  is,  under  all  circumstances,  a 
necessary  condition  of  church-fellowship,  and  it  is  impos- 
sible for  the  Baptists  to  act  otherwise.     *     *     *     *     The 


24  OPEN  COMMUNION  SHOWN  TO  K£ 

recollection  of  this  may  suffice  to  rebut  the  ridicule  mi(\ 
silence  the  clamor  of  those  who  loudly  condemn  the  Baptists 
for  a  proceeding  which,  were  they  but  to  change  their 
opinion  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  their  own  principles 
would  compel  them  to  adopt.  They  both  concur  in  a  com- 
mon principle,  from  which  the  practice  deemed  so  offensive 
is  the  necessary  result."* 

If  baptism  is  a  condition  of  "  church-fellowship"  —  if,  with- 
out it,  no  one  can  be  a  member  of  the  Church  visible,  as  all 
denominations  teach  and  believe — then  Mr.  Hall  is  the 
champion  of  close  communion.  In  other  terms,  he  reduces 
the  Pedo-baptist  churches  to  the  condition  of  the  Quakers; 
he  utterly  regards  them  as  unbaptized;  he  unchurches  them 
according  to  their  own  creed ;  he  leaves  not,  of  their  ecclesi- 
astical structure,  one  stone  upon  another;  and  upon  its 
ruins  he  proposes  to  meet  in  love  and  celebrate  holy  com- 
munion !  The  close  communion  Baptists  can  not  seek  to  do 
more  than  this.  They  cannot  be  more  severe  and  unrelent- 
ing against  the  Pedo-baptists  than  is  Mr.  Hall.  Before  his 
principles,  their  baptism  and  even  their  church  existence 
must  fall,  ere  they  can  come  to  the  Lord's  table.  Are  they 
prepared  for  this?  Do  they  admit  his  terms  of  communion? 
Far  from  it.  We  have  shown  that  their  opinions  are  in 
direct  conflict  with  his.  Rev.  F.  Gr.  Hibbard,  of  the  Metho- 
dist Church,  says  that  the  position  of  Mr.  Hall  is  "an 
anomaly  and  absurdity  that  presents  a  singular  contrast  to 
the  characteristic  symmetry  of  Christian  theology. "f  But 
more  of  Mr.  Hibbard  after  a  time.  We  will  now  notice  some 
of  the  most  important  arguments  of  Mr.  Hall  in  support  of 
a  departure  from  apostolic  custom  in  the  admission  of  un- 
baptized persons  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  On  this  point  we 
*  Hall's  Works,  pp.  212.  213.     f  0n  Baptism,  p.  175. 


UNSCRIPTURAL   AND  DELETERIOUS.  25 

have  no  controversy  with  the  Pedo-baptists.  They  admit 
that  baptism  must  precede  the  supper.  Our  controversy  is 
with  the  Free  Communion  Baptists  alone,  who  depart  from 
apostolic  custom  and  wage  war  against  the  sentiments  of 
Christendom.  Mr.  Hall  thus  explains  the  difference  of  cir- 
cumstances in  the  apostolic  age  and  now,  to  show  why  none 
but  the  baptized  should  then  have  been  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  table,  and  why  the  unbaptized  may  be  admitted  now. 
When  the  apostles  refused  the  Supper  to  any  but  the  bap- 
tized, he  says : 

"It  was  at  a  time  when  a  mistake  respecting  the  will  of 
the  Supreme  Lawgiver  on  the  subject  of  baptism  was  impos- 
sible; it  was  while  a  diversity  of  opinion  relating  to  it  could 
not  exist.  *  *  *  *  But  in  declining  the  communion 
of  modern  Pedo-baptists,  however  eminent  their  piety,  there 
is  really  nothing  analogous  to  their  method  of  proceeding. 
The  resemblance  fails  in  its  most  essential  features.  In 
repelling  an  unbaptized  person  from  their  communion,  sup- 
posing such  a  one  to  have  presented  himself,  they  would 
have  repelled  the  violator  of  a  known  precept:  he  whom  we 
refuse  is  at  most  chargeable  only  with  mistaking  it."* 

There  is  a  primary  question  underlying  this  specious 
statement  of  the  case  which  must  be  adjusted  —  Did  the 
apostles  act  in  obedience  to  the  Divine  law?  was  their  rejec- 
tion of  unbaptized  persons  in  accordance  with  "the  will  of 
the  Supreme  Lawgiver?"  We  assume  the  affirmative.  They 
were  the  agents  of  Heaven  to  establish  the  Church.  They 
were  clothed  with  miracle  and  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  to  whom  was  given  all  power  in  heaven  and  upon  earth, 
was  with  them  always.  Besides,  they  "delivered"  to  the 
churches  respecting  what  they  "received  of  the  Lord,"  as 
.,       *UtSuprap.  2H. 


26  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO   BE 

Paul  said  to  the  Corinthians.  Hence  the  Apostle  said  to 
the  churches:  ''Keep  the  ordinances  AS  I  delivered  thern  unto 
you."  This  he  spake  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  No  apostle,  nor 
angel  from  heaven,  had  any  right  to  institute  practices  and 
customs  in  the  churches  only  as  they  received  power  from  on 
high.  They  were  the  ambassadors  of  God.  They  were  sent 
forth  of  him,  to  make  known  his  will  to  a  lost  world.  He  had 
told  them,  first,  to  make  disciples;  second,  to  baptize  them; 
and,  third,  to  teach  them  to  observe  whatever  had  been  com- 
manded. There  is  not  upon  record  a  solitary  instance  where 
any  apostle  departed  from  this  order.  On  the  contrary, 
throughout  the  New  Testament,  wherever  they  went,  we 
have  multiplied  instances  of  their  faithful  observance  of  it. 
The  supposition  seems  almost  impious  that  the  apostles  re- 
quired the  churches  to  observe  a  custom  that  had  no  divine 
warrant.  We  take  it,  then,  for  granted,  as  a  case  clearly 
established,  that  in  administering  the  Supper  only  to  persons 
baptized,  the  apostles  acted  in  accordance  with  the  will  of 
the  Supreme  Lawgiver.  Indeed,  the}7  must  have  acted 
agreeably  to  his  will,  or  not  according  to  it.  To  suppose  the 
latter,  is  to  suggest  the  probability  that  they  may  have  acted 
so  in  all  cases.  And  who,  then,  need  obey  their  precepts 
or  walk  the  paths  they  trod?  Do  we  not  thus  cut  loose  from 
the  New  Testament  as  a  guide,  and  throw  ourselves  on  the 
ocean  of  conjecture,  without  rudder  and  compass  —  an  ocean 
without  a  bottom  and  without  a  shore. 

If,  then,  this  custom  of  the  apostolic  churches  was  a  con- 
sequence of  a  divine  law  — in  obedience  to  the  will  of  the 
Supreme  Lawgiver — no  dictate  of  human  wisdom,  no  sug- 
gestion of  human  prudence  could  justify  its  change.  It 
being  a  positive  law,  the  reasons  of  it  are  known  only  to 
God.     Such  laws  we  must  obey,  simply  because  they  are 


UNSCRIPTUBAL    A.ND    DELETERIOUS.  27 

commanded,  and  precisely  as  they  are  commanded.  To  de- 
part from  the  order  prescribed,  is  to  violate  the  law.  It 
being  a  divine  positive  institution,  the  apostles  would  not 
have  admitted  any  unbaptized  person  to  the  Supper,  on  any 
plea  of  mistake.  Mistakes  may  serve  to  excuse  the  person  in- 
volved in  them  from  the  guilt  of  neglecting  duty;  but  it  can 
furnish  no  sort  of  plea  for  those  who  are  not  mistaken.  Had 
a  person  come  to  the  apostles  who  had  not,  and  yet  who  sup- 
posed he  had,  been  baptized,  they  knowing  this,  would  have 
rejected  his  application  for  communion.  The  divine  law 
would  have  required  this  at  their  hands.  They  could  not 
act  otherwise  without  violating  the  order  instituted  by  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  and  in  contravention  of  the  will  of  the 
Supreme  Lawgiver.  Nevertheless,  the  person  mistaken,  with 
others  equally  mistaken,  might  partake  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, and  perhaps  be  excused  by  the  searcher  of  hearts.  They 
would  have  discharged  what  they  supposed  to  be  required  of 
them.  The  plea  of  ignorance,  we  say,  might  avail  in  this 
case;  and  it  certainly  would  in  extenuation.  They  knew  no 
better.  But  the  apostles  would  have  known,  that  to  admit 
unbaptized  persons  to  the  Supper  was  contrary  to  the  law. 
They  would,  by  the  admission  of  the  unbaptized,  wilfully 
have  disregarded  the  divine  mandate. 

And  this  law  is  just  as  binding  and  as  sacred  now  as  it 
was  in  the  apostolic  age.  It  has  never  been  repealed  or 
modified.  Those  who  know  the  law  have  no  right  to  violate 
it  in  deference  to  the  mistakes  of  others.  No  matter  how 
sincere  and  satisfied  a  person  may  be  in  his  errors,  it  fur- 
nishes no  excuse  to  one  not  mistaken,  for  disregarding  a 
divine  law.  Let  us  grant,  then,  all  that  Mr.  Hall  can  claim 
by  way  of  premises,  and  still  his  conclusion,  that  because  one 
good  man  may  ignorantly  violate  a  divine  law,  another  good 


28  OPEN   COMMUNION   SHOWN   TO   BE 

man  may  wilfully  violate  it.  Aye,  Mr.  Hall's  logic  must 
even  drive  him  farther.  His  doctrine  is  not  complete  with- 
out the  monstrous  assumption,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Chris- 
tians wilfully  to  disregard  the  express  command  of  the 
Supreme  Lawgiver  for  the  accommodation  of  those  who  have 
mistaken  that  will.  Free  Communion  Baptists  know  that 
the  Pedo-baptists  are  not  baptized;  they  know,  too,  that  in 
the  apostolic  age  unbaptized  persons  were  not  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  Supper;  and  yet  they  insist  that  unbaptized  persons 
ought  to  be  admitted  now.  But  for  this  they  produce  no 
scriptural  precept  or  example.  A  mistake  is  their  sole  autho- 
rity. If  one  is  not  mistaken  on  the  mode  and  subject  of  bap- 
tism, and  yet  remains  unbaptized,  Mr.  Hall  says,  "we  have  no 
hesitation  in  affirming  that  the  individual  is  disqualified  for 
Christian  Communion."  And  because  they  could  not  have 
been  mistaken  in  relation  to  baptism,  he  asserts,  was  the  reason 
why  the  apostles  refused  communion  to  the  unbaptized.  He 
clearly  substitutes  human  mistakes  for  a  divine  law!  Or 
rather,  a  divine  ordinance  may  be  changed  by  those  who 
know  it,  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  are  ignorant  of  it  I 
This  would  lead  him  to  commune  with  any  other  unbaptized 
persons  as  well  as  Pedo-baptists.  Indeed,  it  seems  to  us,  to 
open  the  door  for  all  the  abominations  of  Popery. 

But  why  stop  with  the  mistake  respecting  baptism?  Why 
not  extend  it  to  the  thousands  of  other  points  which  divide 
and  distract  Christendom?  What  "damned  error"  is  there 
which  may  not  boast  its  sincere  and  conscientious  devotees — 
individuals  who,  so  far  as  others  are  competent  to  ascertain, 
are  eminently  pious  and  God-fearing  men?  Who  will  ven- 
ture to  arrogate  to  himself  so  much  of  the  prerogative  of 
God  as  to  say  there  are  no  regenerate  and  truly  converted 
men  —  men  who  have  a  well-grounded  hope  of  salvation  — 


UNSCRIPTUKA1,    AND    DELETERIOUS.  29 

even  among  Unitarians,  Universalists,  Papists,  in  a  word, 
among  the  adherents  of  every  creed?  Then  why  deny  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  these?  If  the  rejection  of  one  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  Jesus  Christ— or  of  a  mistake  in  relation  to  it 
leading  to  its  utter  neglect,  or  to  the  use  of  a  burlesque  sub- 
stitute—  be  no  barrier  to  fellowship,  why  should  mistakes  on 
points  of  theology,  many  of  them  confessedly  hard  to  be 
understood,  be  magnified  into  matters  of  sufficient  pith  and 
moment  to  debar  all  approach  to  the  Lord's  table?  If  there 
are  any  guards  to  the  Lord's  table,  what  are  they  and  where 
are  they,  if  those  be  destroyed  and  discarded  which  were 
established  by  the  Redeemer  and  sacredly  maintained  by  his 
apostles?  But  we  are  not  disposed  to  be  more  lenient  to 
mistakes  than  were  the  apostles.  Mr.  Hall  argues  as  if  there 
was  less  excuse  for  misunderstanding  the  doctrine  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  gospel  in  the  apostolic  than  in  the  present 
age.  This  is  sheer  assumption.  We  know  from  the  apos- 
tolic epistles,  that  among  professed  Christians  many  start- 
ling and  damnable  heresies  obtained.  Then  the  Supper  of 
the  Lord  was  made  a  drunken  revel  in  Corinth — a  church 
that  had  enjoyed  the  teachings  of  Paul,  Peter,  and  Apollos. 
They  made  the  cup  of  the  Lord  the  cup  of  demons.  They 
did  not  discern  the  Lord's  body.  There  were  those,  too, 
who  denied  the  resurrection.  Others  taught  justification  by 
works.  Others,  again,  taught  that  Christians  should  be  cir- 
cumcised and  keep  the  whole  law  of  Moses.  In  short,  the 
mystery  of  iniquity  did  already  work.  What  abominations 
had  crept  into  the  churches  of  Asia  while  yet  John  lived, 
the  first  chapters  of  the  Revelation  show.  Hence,  the  posi- 
tion of  Mr.  Hall,  that  no  one  could  be  mistaken  on  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism  in  that  age,  is  only  a  conjecture.  It  has  no 
support  from  the  Bible.     And  the  assertion  is  nothing  less 


30  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

than  that  the  Scriptures  given  by  inspiration  of  God  are  in- 
sufficient for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruc- 
tion in  righteousness;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect, 
thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works.  It  is  an  im- 
peachment of  the  benevolence  and  philanthropy  of  God  to 
charge  that  he  instituted  ordinances  for  our  observance  in  lan- 
guage so  obscure  and  ambiguous  that  we  could  not  certainly 
learn  our  duty.  But  the  Free  Communion  Baptists  will  not 
assume  this.  To  them  baptism,  in  its  mode  and  subjects,  is  as 
clear  and  as  intelligible  as  if  written  in  letters  of  light  on 
the  archway  of  the  heavens.  None  of  them  is  so  dull  that  he 
can  not  understand  it.  Indeed,  we  do  not  see  how  the  mat- 
ter could  be  more  plain  or  palpable.  What  other  words, 
and  phrases,  and  illustrations  could  be  employed,  than  those 
of  the  inspired  pensman,  to  make  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
more  fully  understood?  Mr.  Hall's  position  is  not  unlike 
that  of  the  rich  man  in  the  parable  —  he  would  have  the 
apostles  raised  from  the  dead  to  correct  the  errors  of  Pedo- 
baptists;  but  if  they  will  not  believe  the  New  Testament, 
neither  would  they  be  persuaded  though  one  arose  from  the 
dead.  A  mistake,  forsooth!  There  is  no  mistake  in  the 
case.  The  Pedo-baptists  all  know  that  immersion  is  bap- 
tism. They  know,  too,  that  a  believer  is  a  proper  subject  of 
baptism.  On  these  points  they  entertain  no  doubts.  These 
things  are  conceded  by  all  Christendom.  No  man  has  ever 
disputed  them.  They  admit  of  no  discussion.  The  practice 
of  Baptists  furnishes  common  ground  from  which  the  con- 
science of  no  Christian  repels  him,  where  all  can  meet  in  per- 
fect concord  and  with  full  assurance  of  being  right.  The 
Pedo-baptists  can  come  to  this  ground  without  any  sacrifice 
of  principle;  the  Baptists  can  not  leave  it  without  renounc- 
ing their  allegiance  to  the  King  of  Saints,  and  casting  away 


I'NSCRIPTURAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  31 

fis  worthless  what  they  esteem  the  righteous  requisitions  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures.  And  here  is  the  true  and  scriptural 
place  of  communion.  If  disunion  be  a  sin  —  if  separation  at 
the  Lord's  table  be  contrary  to  the  gospel  —  on  the  Pedo- 
baptists  must  rest  all  the  consequences.  They  refuse  to 
come  to  the  point  where  all  might  meet  and  fraternize,  not 
because  they  believe  that  the  Scriptures  forbid  it,  but  simply 
because  they  prefer  what  they  call  a  "  non-essential "  to  the 
union  of  the  body  of  Christ! 

Mistaken  as  to  baptism!  It  was  thirteen  hundred  years 
before  any  portion  of  the  Pcdo-baptist  world  brought  them- 
selves fully  into  this  mistake.  It  was  not  until  1311,  at  the 
Council  of  Ravenna,  that  the  Pedo-baptists  declared  affusion 
to  be  as  good  as  immersion.  This  never  was  declared  by  the 
Church  of  England;  but  the  practice  of  sprinkling,  imported 
from  Geneva,  prevailed  there  against  the  Rubric,  in  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth.  The  Presbyterians  were  the  first  in  the  world 
to  prescribe  affusion  absolutely.  Every  church  allows  im- 
mersion. Thousands  in  the  Pedo-baptist  churches  at  this  day. 
entered  by  immersion,  because  they  would  enter  no  other 
way.  A  person  may  repudiate  his  sprinkling  and  his  bap- 
tism in  infancy  by  joining  the  Baptists,  and  still  retain  the 
fellowship  of  the  Pedo-baptists.  Infant  baptism  is  falling 
into  neglect  in  the  United  States.  By  the  more  evangelical 
Pedo-baptists  it  is  represented  merely  as  the  solemn  sprink- 
ling of  water  in  the  faces  of  babes  and  sucklings,  conferring 
no  grace  or  strength,  and  worthless  to  their  souls  and  bodies. 
Granting  the  mistake,  then,  they  can  not  escape  just  and 
severe  censure  for  obstinate  adherence  to  customs  which 
they  hold  in  no  great  esteem,  and  yet  cleave  to  them  even  to 
the  schism  of  the  churches. 

Mr.  Hall,  speaking  of  the  immersion  of  believers,  says: 


32  OPEN   COMMUNION   SHOWN   TO   BE 

"The  evidence  by  which  our  views  are  supported,  though 
sufficient  for  every  practical  purpose,  is  decidedly  inferior  to 
that  which  accompanied  their  first  promulgation.  The  ut- 
most we  can  pretend  to  is  a  very  high  probability;  the  primi- 
tive converts  possessed  an  absolute  certainty."* 

But  the  primitive  converts  possessed  no  other  evidence 
than  we  possess.  The  word  of  God  is  perfect.  We  have  a 
sure  word  of  prophecy.  But  take  the  concession — if  we  have 
testimony  sufficient  for  all  "practical  purposes,"  why  tolerate 
a  mistake  to  the  nullification  of  the  law.  Mr.  Hall,  in  his 
further  efforts  to  evade  the  force  of  scriptural  precept  and 
example,  attempts  to  show  that  the  circumstances  surround- 
ing the  apostles  were  different  from  those  surrounding  us, 
and  that  the  spirit  which  actuated  their  conduct  was  the 
same  which  controls  Free  Communion  Baptists: 

"The  apostles  refused  the  communion  of  such,  and  such 
only,  as  were  insincere  —  'who  held  the  truth  in  unrighte- 
ousness,' avowing  their  conviction  of  one  system  and  acting 
upon  another ;  and  wherever  similar  indications  display 
themselves,  we  do  precisely  the  same.  They  admitted  the 
weak  and  erroneous,  providing  their  errors  were  not  of  a 
nature  subversive  of  Christianity;  aud  so  do  we.  They 
tolerated  men  whose  sentiments  differed  from  their  own, 
providing  they  did  not  rear  the  standard  of  revolt  by  a  de- 
liberate resistance  to  the  only  infallible  authority;  and  such 
precisely  is  the  course  we  pursue.  We  bear  with  those  who 
mistake  the  dictates  of  inspiration  in  points  which  are  not 
essential ;  but  with  none  who  wilfully  contradict  or  neglect 
them."f 

But  it  was  the  business  of  Mr.  Hall  to  show  that  they 
admitted  to  communion  any  who  did  not,  from  any  cause, 
*  Ut  supra,  p.  213.  f  ut  supra,  pp.  215,  216. 


UNSCRIPTURAL   AND    DELETERIOUS.  33 

comply  with  a  plain  and  positive  law  of  God.  It  is  confessed 
they  admitted  no  unbaptized  person  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
We  have  shown  that  this  conduct  was  in  obedience  to  a 
divine  law.  We  can  not  believe  that  any  amiability  of  cha- 
racter, that  any  sincerity  in  error  however  deep,  would,  in 
their  judgments,  have  furnished  the  slightest  excuse  for  their 
deliberate  disregard  of  this  law.  The  violation  of  a  law  by 
one  person,  no  matter  from  what  cause,  never  authorized  its 
violation  by  another.  The  apostles  and  all  the  holy  men  of 
old  were  very  scrupulous  in  their  observance  of  the  laws  of 
Christ.  We  have  not  an  example  upon  record  where  they 
justified  or  excused  the  slightest  disobedience  or  neglect  of 
the  heavenly  institutions.  They  never  tolerated  any  senti- 
ment which  led  them  to  disregard  the  will  of  the  Supreme 
Lawgiver ;  nor  do  we  believe  they  would  have  regarded  in- 
fant baptism  as  a  trivial  error  or  an  innocent  mistake.  Mr. 
Hall  seems  all  along  to  take  it  for  granted  that  they  would. 
In  this  he  assumes  the  main  point  demanding  proof.  We 
utterly  deny  the  assumption.  Mr.  Hall  had  surely  forgotten 
the  history  of  infant  baptism;  a  system,  the  natural  and 
necessary  tendency  of  which  was  to  obliterate  the  lines  of 
demarkation  between  the  church  and  the  world  —  to  unite 
church  and  state — to  remove  the  distinction  between  those 
who  served  God  and  those  who  served  him  not.  Infant  bap- 
tism is  the  pillar  of  Popery.  That  monstrous  superstruc- 
ture of  fraud  and  folly  could  not  survive  two  generations,  if 
infant  baptism  did  not  support  it.  By  that  rite,  in  each 
generation,  not  less  than  one  hundred  millions  of  persons 
become  the  subjects  of  the  Pope.  Millions  per  annum  are 
kidnapped  in  their  cradles  and  made  the  vassals  of  other 
churches  and  creeds,  hy  what  Mr.  Hall  is  pleased  rhetori- 
cally to  class  among  "the  points  not  essential."     And  foi 


34  OPEN   COMMUNION   SHOWN   TO   BE 

what  reason  is  infant  baptism  administered  to  others?  Why, 
as  taught  in  all  Pedo-baptist  creeds,  as  a  sign  and  a  seal  of 
regeneration  and  salvation  —  to  make  the  infant  a  member 
of  the  church  and  an  heir  of  glory,  &c.  And  will  Free 
Communion  Baptists  presume  to  tell  us,  that  they  are  walk- 
ing in  the  footsteps  of  the  apostles  regarding  these  things  as 
matters  of  no  serious  moment?  A  rite  that  carnalizes  and 
secularizes  the  church;  that  places  regeneration  and  justifi- 
cation in  the  act  of  sprinkling  water  in  the  face  of  an  uncon- 
scious infant;  that  upholds  Popery,  and  has  deluged  the 
world  with  blood  and  irreligion;  is  this  an  error  "not  sub- 
versive of  Christianity,"  and  would  it  be  so  regarded  by  the 
apostles? 

With  these  qualifications  we  subscribe  unhesitatingly  to 
the  declamation  of  Mr.  Hall  last  quoted,  respecting  the  for- 
bearance and  toleration  to  be  extended  to  human  imperfec- 
tion. The  Close  Communion  Baptists  go  the  full  limit 
allowed  by  the  Bible  on  this  subject.  No  people  have  ex- 
ceeded them  in  kindly  feelings  and  treatment  towards  those 
they  believed  in  error.  They  have  always  gone  with  persons 
of  every  persuasion  just  as  far  as  the  word  of  God  would  let 
them.  They  have  ever  been  the  fearless  and  unwavering 
advocates  of  religious  and  civil  liberty.  Their  garments  are 
unstained  by  the  blood  of  martyrs.  But  they  never  believed 
it  right  to  tolerate  a  disregard  of  a  divine  law,  or  the  neglect 
of  a  gospel  ordinance.  Even  in  the  face  of  death  and  perse- 
cution the  most  terrible  and  unrelenting,  have  they  refused 
to  connive  at  the  subversion  of  the  most  distinguishing 
peculiarities  of  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  by  that 
monster  engine  of  evil,  error,  and  corruption,  infant  baptism. 
In  this,  they  have  the  warrant  of  Scripture  and  the  approval 
of  heaven.     They  have  in  this  but  obeyed  the  precepts,  to 


UNSCRIPTURAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  35 

observe  the  ordinances  as  delivered  to  them,  and  to  contend 
earnestly  for  the  faith  delivered  to  the  saints.  Mr.  Hall, 
however,  seems  disposed  to  change  his  grounds.  He  seems 
to  assume  that  the  Lord's  Supper  ought  to  precede  Baptism. 
Speaking  of  the  two  ordinances,  he  says: 

"That  there  is  no  natural  connection  between  them  is 
obvious.  They  were  instituted  at  different  times  and  for  dif- 
ferent purposes :  Baptism  is  a  mode  of  professing  our  faith 
in  the  blessed  Trinity,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  commemora- 
tion of  the  dying  love  of  the  Redeemer;  the  former  is  the 
act  of  an  individual,  the  latter  of  a  society.  The  words 
which  contain  our  warrant  for  the  celebration  of  the  Euchar- 
ist convey  no  allusion  to  baptism  whatever ;  those  which 
prescribe  baptism  carry  no  anticipative  reference  to  the 
Eucharist.  And  as  it  is  demonstrable  that  John's  baptism 
was  a  separate  institution  from  that  which  was  enacted  after 
our  Lord's  resurrection,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  evidently  ante- 
rior to  Baptism,  and  the  original  communicants  consisted 
entirely  of  such  as  had  not  received  that  ordinance.  To 
all  appearance,  the  rites  in  question  rest  on  independent 
grounds.  But  perhaps  there  is  a  special  connection  between 
the  two,  arising  from  divine  appointment.  If  this  be  the 
case,  it  will  be  easy  to  point  it  out.  Barely,  if  ever,  are 
they  mentioned  together,  and  on  no  occasion  is  it  asserted  or 
insinuated,  that  the  validity  of  the  sacrament  depends  on  the 
previous  observation  of  the  baptismal  ceremony.  That  there 
was  such  a  connection  between  circumcision  and  the  pass- 
over,  we  learn  from  the  explicit  declaration  of  Moses,  who 
asserts  that  '  no  uncircumcised  person  shall  eat  thereof.' 
Let  a  similar  prohibition  be  produced  in  the  present  instance, 
and  the  controversy  is  at  an  end."* 
•  Pp.  218,  219. 


36  OPEN   COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

A  very  plain  statement  of  the  case  will  dissipate  this 
specious  structure  of  beautiful  words  and  sentences.  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  ordinances  of  divine  appoint- 
ment. Being  positive  institutions,  they  are  to  be  observed 
precisely  as  commanded.  If  not  observed  as  commanded, 
they  are  not  observed  at  all.  Positive  institutions  and 
sacramental  ordinances  are  not  founded  in  the  nature  of 
things,  but  solely  in  the  pleasure  of  him  who  ordains  them. 
He  institutes  them  precisely  as  he  wishes  them  to  be  ob- 
served. To  change  or  alter  them  in  any  respect,  is  to  dis- 
trust his  wisdom  and  even  to  repeal  his  enactments.  Hence 
the  Supper  was  to  be  observed  by  eating  bread  and  drinking 
wine.  We  have  no  right,  therefore,  to  substitute  cheese  or 
beefsteak  for  the  former,  or  milk,  or  soup,  or  water,  for  the 
latter.  A  supper  in  these  elements  would  not  be  the  Lord's 
Supper;  and  to  celebrate  it  thus  would  be  to  insult  the  Ke- 
deemer  by  pouring  contempt  upon  his  commands.  And  so 
of  baptism.  If  it  is  commanded  to  be  performed  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity,  it  can  not  be  performed  in  any  other 
name.  If  by  immersion  in  water,  that  is  no  baptism  which 
is  performed  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  or  when  any  thing 
else  than  water  is  the  element.  And  if  believers  are  the 
subjects  of  the  ordinance,  then  infidels  and  infants  are  not. 
We  disregard  the  law  of  the  ordinance  in  neglecting  or  de- 
parting from  any  thing  commanded  by  it.  To  neglect  the 
law,  even  by  mistaking  its  import,  is  no  observance  of  the 
law.  If  mistakes  were  admitted  as  a  justification  for  depart- 
ing from  the  law  of  a  sacrament,  then  men's  erring  judg- 
ments become  the  substitutes  of  the  divine  pleasure,  and 
human  blunders  may  supercede  the  commands  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  being  positive  divine  insti- 


UNSCIUPTURAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  37 

tutions,  it  follows,  that  it'  not  observed  as  commanded,  they 
are  not  observed  at  all.  And  further,  as  they  both  are  com- 
manded, they  arc  of  equal  obligation.  Mr.  Hall,  without 
asserting  it  to  be  so,  nevertheless  seems  to  give  pre-eminence 
to  the  Supper.  But  for  this,  there  is  no  warrant  in  reason 
or  revelation.  Jesus  Christ  instituted  both  ordinances,  and 
he  emphatically  commands  the  observance  of  both.  No  pro- 
vision is  any  where  made  in  the  Scriptures  for  the  neglect  of 
either.  And  if  both  are  to  be  observed,  it  is  equally  clear 
that  they  are  not  to  be  observed  at  the  same  time.  One 
must  take  precedence.  The  question  is,  Which  ought  to  be 
first  administered,  according  to  the  Scriptures?  This  settled, 
and  all  urged  above  respecting  " natural  connection"  and 
John's  baptism,  and  the  time  of  their  institution,  become 
trifles  light  as  air.  And  in  answering  this  question,  we  must 
again  appeal  to  the  commission  and  to  apostolic  practice. 
By  these,  we  learn  that  baptism  was  the  first  duty  of  a  be- 
liever. This  is  established  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the  New 
Testament.  To  give  it  any  other  place,  to  put  it  after  any 
other  sacrament  or  church  privilege,  is  to  destroy  its  whole 
import  and  design.  In  baptism  we  publicly  profess  our  faith 
in  .Jesus  Christ;  we  publicly  put  on  Christ;  we  are  buried 
into  his  death,  and  arise  to  walk  in  newness  of  life;  we  de- 
clare that  we  are  dead  to  sin,  and  that  our  sins  are  remitted. 
Hence,  in  the  natural  order  of  things,  the  Savior  directed 
that  after  believers  were  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Trin- 
ity, they  should  be  instructed  to  observe  all  things.  The 
apostles  so  interpreted  the  commission.  It  can  not  admit  of 
any  other  interpretation.  Such,  then,  is  the  order  of  heaven. 
We  can  not,  we  dare  not  change  that  order.  We  have  no 
right  to  legislate  for  the  church.  We  should  gainsay  an 
angel  if  he  should  presume  to  alter  or  amend  this  last  great 


38  OPEN    COMMUNION   SHOWN   TO    BE 

commandment  of  the  Savior.  We  will  not,  because  we 
need  not,  waste  a  word  in  comment  upon  Mr.  Hall's  views 
of  John's  baptism,  "natural  connection,"  &c.  We  plant 
ourselves  on  the  commission  and  on  the  practice  of  the 
apostles,  and  defy  all  the  fiery  darts  of  the  adversary.  The 
gates  of  hell  can  not  prevail  against  us. 

Indeed,  if  baptism  is  not  to  be  observed  previous  to  the 
Lord's  Supper;  if,  in  a  word,  Mr.  Hall's  arguments  have  the 
specific  gravity  of  a  feather,  why  need  we  baptize  any  one? 
He  makes  void  this  law  of  baptism,  by  his  speculative 
notions  of  the  Supper.  And  if  men  may  disregard  so  much 
of  the  commission  as  relates  to  baptism,  why  not  that  por- 
tion of  it  which  requires  the  gospel  to  be  preached  and  men 
to  believe?  And  if  the  Supper  may  be  observed  by  those 
not  baptized,  why  not  by  those  who  do  not  believe?  And 
if  the  oblivious  veil  of  charity  must  be  thrown  over  men  err- 
ing in  reference  to  the  command  respecting  baptism,  why 
not  over  those  who  err  respecting  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the 
nature  of  his  atonement,  &c?  Whenever  men  depart  from 
the  law  of  Christ — whenever  they  begin  to  legislate  for  God 
—  they  desert  the  guidance  of  heaven,  and  follow  an  iynus 
fatuus  of  earth,  involving  all  in  bewilderment  and  delusion. 

Mr.  Hall  demands  that  a  prohibition  be  produced  from 
the  Scriptures  against  the  unbaptized!  And  with  equal  pro- 
priety he  might  demand  the  production  of  precept  against 
the  communion  of  Infidels,  Unitarians,  Universalists,  Qua- 
kers, Papists,  &c.  If  this  demand  be  legitimate,  then  none 
are  prohibited  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  the  burden  of  proof 
was  on  him.  It  was  his  business  to  produce  authority  for 
the  admission  of  the  unbaptized.  Until  he  could  do  this, 
he  was  contending  for  a  practice  that  had  no  scriptural  war- 
rant.    He  was  acting  without  law.     He  was  inviting  per- 


UNSCRIPTCRAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  39 

sons  to  the  Lord's  table  whom  the  Lord  had  not  invited,  and 
whom  he  had  told  no  one  to  invite.  The  presumption  is,  if 
the  Lord  had  wished  such  to  partake,  he  would  have  said  -o, 
That  he  has  not  so  done,  is  manifest  to  all  men.  Mr.  Hall 
does  not  pretend  to  allege  any  such  declaration.  His  whole 
effort  is  an  attempt  to  apologize  for  the  fact  that  neither  the 
Savior  nor  his  apostles  made  any  provision  for  the  com- 
munion of  those  who  he  insists  ought  to  commune.  He 
seems  to  argue  as  if  he  had  a  right  to  fill  a  blank  left  in  the 
commission  and  in  the  acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  argument, 
however,  is  fallacious  in  the  extreme,  to  insist  that  because 
the  law  does  not  prohibit,  therefore  it  authorizes — that  an 
act  is  lawful  because  the  law  is  silent  in  relation  to  it.  We 
have  adduced  precept  and  example  for  communion  of  the 
baptized;  our  work  is  done.  The  admission  of  such  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  settled.  Their  scriptural  right  is  established. 
If  Mr.  Hall,  or  any  one  else,  claims  that  others  ought  to  be 
admitted,  it  is  our  right  to  demand  the  authority.  "We  ap- 
peal to  the  law  and  the  testimony.  On  them  devolves  the 
duty  of  producing  a  divine  warrant  for  their  conduct.  They 
have  no  more  right  to  ask  us  to  commune  with  any  one 
without  scriptural  authority,  than  has  the  Pope  to  require  us 
to  kiss  his  toe  or  bow  in  adoration  of  the  host.  These  things 
are  self-evident  to  Protestants,  and  need  no  proof  to  sustain 
them. 

Granting,  then,  for  the  sake  of  argument  (and  we  beg 
leave  to  say,  emphatically,  it  is  only  for  that  reason  ws  do 
grant  it),  that  in  its  institution,  the  Savior  administered 
the  Supper  to  those  who  had  not  received  Christian  baptism ; 
as  that  was  its  beginning,  it  proves  nothing.  The  question 
is,  What  directions  did  he  give  his  disciples  when  its  admin- 
istration was  committed  to  their  hands?     The  first  Supper 


40  OPEN   COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

was  not  celebrated  in  commemoration  of  the  broken  body 
and  spilled  blood  of  the  Saviour;  for  then  his  body  had  not 
been  broken  nor  his  blood  poured  out.  But  is  that  any  rea- 
son against  the  law  then  enacted,  that  all  future  celebrations 
should  be  for  that  purpose?  Our  legislature  grants  a  char- 
ter to  a  company.  In  it  are  enumerated  a  dozen  men  who 
are  made  a  company,  and  provisions  are  made  to  perpetuate 
that  company.  It  is  enacted,  that  any  one  who  shall  contri- 
bute one  hundred  dollars  may  become  a  member.  Now, 
although  the  men  mentioned  in  the  charter  may  never  have 
contributed  one  cent,  that  fact  could  not  be  urged  for  the 
admission  of  similar  persons  in  future;  for  the  law  provides, 
that  to  become  a  member  hereafter,  one  must  contribute  one 
hundred  dollars.  So,  no  matter  whether  those  who  partook 
of  the  first  Supper  were  baptized  or  not,  if  the  commission 
requires  baptism  as  the  first  duty  of  the  believer  —  a  duty 
that  must  precede  the  Supper  —  the  question  is  settled  by  a 
divine  statute.  Why,  Mr.  Hall  might  just  as  well  argue, 
that  inasmuch  as  these  disciples  never  received  any  thing 
else  but  John's  baptism  —  which  we  have  his  unsupported 
affirmation  was  not  Christian  baptism  —  therefore  all  ought 
to  receive  John's  baptism,  or  else  no  baptism  at  all!  Turn 
the  matter  as  you  will  or  can  —  say  there  is  no  "peculiar 
connection"  between  Baptism  and  the  Supper — that  they 
were  instituted  at  different  times  and  for  different  pur- 
poses—  and  whatever  else  the  ingenuity  of  Mr.  Hall  may 
suggest  or  his  eloquence  embellish  —  the  fact  flashes  in  our 
face  wherever  we  turn  in  the  New  Testament,  that  to  observe 
these  ordinances  as  established  by  heaven,  the  believer  must 
be  baptized,  and  then  he  may  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  So 
Jesus  taught,  and  so  the  apostles  believed  and  practiced.  Any 
other  order  is  not  from  above.    It  is  of  man,  and  not  of  God. 


UNSCRIPTURAL   AND    DELETERIOUS.  41 

"Nothing  can  be  more  evident,"  says  Mr.  Hall,  "than  that 
the  whole  genius  of  Christianity  is  favorable  to  the  most 
cordial  and  affectionate  treatment  of  our  fellow-Christians. 
To  love  them  fervently,  to  bear  with  their  imperfections,  and 
to  cast  the  mantle  of  forgiveness  over  their  infirmities,  is  to 
fulfil  the  law  of  Christ."* 

This  is  most  true.  Every  strict  Baptist  utters  a  hearty 
amen  to  it.  It  is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  a  departure 
from  this  spirit  is  the  most  marked  feature  in  the  history  of 
infant  baptism.  But,  of  course,  in  extending  this  forbear- 
ance, and  in  unfolding  and  spreading  tbis  mantle  of  forgive- 
ness, it  is  not  meant  that  we  ought  to  violate  a  command- 
ment of  the  head  of  the  church,  and  blot  from  existence  a 
sacrament  of  the  New  Testament — that  we  should  cover  up 
the  sins  of  others  by  committing  sins  ourselves.  If  this  be 
not  meant,  then  it  furnishes  no  warrant  for  the  admission  of 
the  unbaptized  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  contrary  to  the  positive 
requisition  of  the  statute  of  Jesus  upon  earth. 

"The  next  question  is,"  continues  our  opponent,  "Whether 
a  formal  separation  from  them  [pious  Pedo-baptists  or 
unbaptized  persons]  on  account  of  their  imputed  errors, 
amounts  to  what  the  Scriptures  style  schism?" f  And  on 
the  next  page  he  answers  this  question,  and  charges  the  sin 
upon  the  strict  Baptists:  "It  deserves  the  serious  considera- 
tion of  our  opponents,  that  are  contending  for  that  schism  in 
the  body  of  Christ  against  which  he  so  fervently  prayed,  so 
anxiously  guarded,  and  which  his  apostles  represent  as  its 
greatest  calamity  and  reproach." 

But  Mr.  Hall  does  not  believe  or  charge,  that  the  Baptists, 
either  by  mistake  or  otherwise,  fail  in  their  observance  of  the 
institutions  of  the  gospel.     He  even  grants  and  insists  that 

*  P.  220.  ■  t  Ibid. 


42  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

they  observe  the  New  Testament  order  of  things.  He  con- 
cedes that  our  practice  is  in  exact  accordance  with  the  com- 
mand of  Jesus  and  the  custom  of  the  apostles.  Now,  is  it 
not  perverting  all  language  and  mocking  all  the  proprieties 
of  speech,  to  call  that  schism  which  is  obedience  to  Christ 
and  the  fellowship  of  his  apostles?  He  admits  that  our 
practice  is  in  accordance  with  that  of  the  apostles ;  that,  were 
our  days  rolled  back  to  the  days  of  the  primitive  Christians, 
our  action  would  perfectly  agree  with  theirs;  that  our  cus- 
tom would  produce  no  schism  in  the  apostolic  churches. 
But  he  admits  the  conduct  of  the  Pedo-baptists  would  have 
produced  schism  in  those  days;  that  the  apostles  could  not, 
and  did  not,  admit  the  unbaptized  to  the  Lord's  table.  He 
doubtless  believed,  too,  that  these  holy  and  inspired  men 
would  have  looked  upon  sprinkling  as  mockery,  and  the 
baptism  of  an  infant  as  impiety.  Then  the  schism  in  the 
case,  by  a  fair  and  necessary  deduction  from  his  own  pre- 
mises, falls  in  all  the  crushing  weight  of  its  iniquity  upon 
the  Pedo-baptists,  and  not  upon  the  Baptists.  For  the  true 
test  of  schism,  we  must  go  back  to  the  days  when  men 
taught  and  acted  by  inspiration.  We  must  appeal  to  the 
fountain  sources  of  our  religion,  ere  their  waters  were  cor- 
rupted by  the  wicked  inventions  and  silly  superstitions  of 
men.  There  we  go,  and  we  find  that  the  Baptists  would  be 
in  perfect  fellowship  with  the  saints  of  that  age,  and  that 
Pedo-baptists  would  not.  The  Pedo-baptists  would  be 
separated  from  them,  Mr.  Hall  being  witness.  And  yet  he 
calls  the  former  schismatics,  and  the  latter  he  holds  up  as 
the  sincere  and  anxious  advocates  and  promoters  of  the 
purity  of  the  body  of  Christ. 

If  we  understand  the  unity  inculcated  in  the  Bible,  it  con- 
sists in  "one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,"  &c.     But  Mr. 


I  NSCRIVTLRAI.    AND    DELETERIOUS.  43 

Hall  wants  a  union  by  the  omission  of  the  "one  baptism." 
He  erases  that  item  from  the  terms  of  general  union  as 
established  by  heaven.  Aye,  he  charges  those  who  adhere 
to  the  "one  baptism"  as  schismatics,  and  claims  for  himself 
the  championship  of  union  by  seeking  to  obliterate  it  from 
the  gospel  church !  Pedo-baptists  have  no  baptism  accord- 
ing to  our  opponent.  He  would  commune  with  them  as 
" unbaptized"  persons.  He  insists  that  baptism  is  not  essen- 
tial to  communion;  and  yet  the  apostle  tells  us  that  Chris- 
tian communion  consists  in  "one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  bap- 
tism," &c. !  But  Mr.  Hall  has  not  told  us  why  communion 
is  not  as  important  in  baptism  as  the  Supper.  If  both  are 
divine  sacraments,  was  it  schismatical  not  to  commune  in 
the  latter,  any  more  than  not  to  commune  in  the  former? 
Here  is  the  real  place  to  seek  communion.  Let  communion 
obtain  in  baptism,  and  the  greatest  barrier  to  communion  in 
the  Supper  is  subverted.  And  communion  in  baptism  can 
be  effected  by  the  Pedo-baptists  without  any  sacrifice  of  con- 
science, as  before  demonstrated.  The  exhortations  against 
schisms,  so  eloquently  and  so  pathetically  made  by  Mr.  Hall, 
ought,  then,  to  have  been  pressed  upon  those  Pedo-baptists 
whose  piety  and  purity  he  so  highly  commends,  and  whose 
affection  and  fellowship  he  is  so  anxious  to  secure  and  cher- 
ish. He  builds  his  free  communion  system  upon  a  wrong 
foundation  —  his  temple  is  constructed  with  the  bottom 
upwards  —  the  monument  of  love  and  union  he  has  so  gor- 
geously adorned  is  an  inverted  pyramid. 

"Say,"  exclaims  Mr.  Hall,  "did  the  apostles  refuse  the 
communion  of  good  men?  Did  they  set  the  example  of 
dividing  them  into  two  classes,  a  qualified  and  a  disqualified 
class;  and  while  they  acknowledged  the  latter  were  objects 
of  divine  favor  equally  with  themselves,  enjoin  on  their  con- 


44  OPEN   COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

verts  tbc  duty  of  disowning  them  at  the  Lord's  table?  Are 
any  traces  to  be  discovered  in  the  New  Testament  of  a 
society  of  Purists,  who,  under  the  pretence  of  superior  illu- 
mination on  one  subject,  kept  themselves  aloof  from  the 
Christian  world,  excluding  from  their  communion  myriads 
of  those  whom  they  believed  to  be  heirs  of  salvation?"* 

Mr.  Hall  uses  the  word  "communion"  here  in  the  sense 
of  a  joint  participation  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  never  so 
used  in  the  Bible.  This  premised,  we  remark,  in  reply, 
First.  That  the  apostles  refused  to  invite  all  good  men  to 
the  Lord's  table  who  were  not  baptized.  Jesus  had  so  com- 
manded, and  they  were  not  of  those  who  would  violate  the 
least  of  his  commandmeuts  to  please  either  good  or  bad  men. 
They  chose  to  obey  God  rather  than  man,  even  in  the  face 
of  persecution  and  death.  Second.  They  did  separate  the 
baptized  from  the  unbaptized;  admitting  the  former  to  the 
Supper,  and  rejecting  all  the  latter,  whether  good  or  bad. 
Mr.  Hall  admits  this  in  confessing  that  they  admitted  only 
the  baptized.  Third.  No  matter  how  much  they  may  have 
esteemed  an  individual  the  object  of  divine  favor,  their  whole 
lives  show  that  no  partiality  for  persons  and  no  charms  of 
popularity  could  seduce  them  into  a  violation  of  the  laws  of 
their  Master,  or  the  utter  disregard  of  the  "one  baptism." 
The  apostles  were  just  such  a  "Society  of  Purists"  as  the 
strict  Baptists,  respecting  the  Lord's  Supper.  They  would 
not  have  admitted  an  angel  from  heaven  without  the  Lord's 
authority  to  do  so.  They  would  have  suffered  any  torture, 
and  met  the  last  enemy  in  his  most  appalling  shape,  rather 
than  have  violated  the  laws  Jesus  had  instituted  for  his 
kingdom  —  rather  than  break  down  one  defense  which  he 
had  put  up  to  preserve  the  purity  of  his  table.  Fourth. 
•  P.  222. 


rNSCRIPTURAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  45 

The  apostles,  under  "the  pretence  of  superior  illumination" 
on  the  subject  of  "one  baptism,"  with  which  our  opponent 
sneeringly  reproaches  us,  made  it  a  term  of  Christian  com- 
munion, and  separated  themselves  from  the  whole  world  of 
those  who  did  not  conform  to  that  institution.  They  loved 
the  word  of  the  Lord  more  than  popularity.  They  knew 
their  divine  Master  loved  obedience  more  than  all  burnt 
offerings.  For  this  they  were  reproached,  reviled,  hated  of 
all  men,  and  grievously  persecuted.  But  they  fainted  not; 
nay,  they  rejoiced  because  counted  worthy  of  persecution  for 
the  Lord's  sake. 

"  The  revival  or  propagation  of  some  particular  truth  being 
the  avowed  object  of  their  union,"  argues  Mr.  Hall,  in 
reference  to  the  Baptists,  "the  members  of  such  a  society 
will  almost  inevitably  attach  to  it  an  undue  importance ;  and 
as  their  attention  will  be  chiefly  directed  towards  that  in 
which  they  differ  from  others,  and  in  which  they  are  con- 
ceived to  excel,  it  will  be  a  miracle  if  they  escape  a  censori- 
ous, conceited,  disputatious  spirit.  While  their  constitution 
is  founded  not  so  much  on  a  separation  from  the  world  as 
from  the  church,  they  will  be  almost  irresistibly  tempted  to 
transfer  to  the  latter  a  large  portion  of  the  associations  and 
feelings  of  which  the  former  is  the  proper  object."* 

A  Free  Communion  Baptist  is,  in  spirit  and  feeling,  no 
Baptist  at  all.  He  not  only  discards  whatever  makes  us 
Baptists,  but  he  can  not  get  along  without  misrepresenting 
our  system  and  sentiments,  and  making  it  palpable  to  every 
one  that  he  cherishes  for  us  feelings  of  contempt,  and  loves 
all  others  better  than  those  whose  name  he  bears  and  to 
whose  association  he  affects  to  belong.  The  above  extract 
furnishes  a  melancholy  example  in  proof  of  this,  in  the  writ- 

*  Pp.  222.  223. 


46  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

ings  of  the  most  gifted  and  the  most  celebrated  free  com- 
munionist.  He  ought  to  have  known,  that  the  avowed 
object  of  the  union  of  the  Baptists  was,  not  the  revival  and 
propagation  of  the  primitive  baptism  solely.  Such  an  avowal 
was  never  made  by  the  Baptists.  They  have  ever  avowed 
that  their  union  was  founded  on  the  principles  of  the  pro- 
phets and  apostles,  Jesus  Christ  being  the  head  of  the 
church.  They  believed  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  was  not 
of  this  world,  that  the  church  should  be  entirely  separate 
from  the  world,  and  that  they  should  reject  from  its  govern- 
ment all  those  rules  of  prudence  which  human  wisdom  had 
suggested  and  ordained.  Besides,  the  enmity  of  Mr.  Hall  is 
manifest,  in  representing  the  Baptists  as  separate  from  the 
church,  simply  because  they  follow  Christ,  and  will  not  fel- 
lowship human  institutions  to  the  subversion  of  the  institu- 
tions of  Christ.  What  does  Mr.  Hall  mean  by  "  the 
church?"  Is  it  any  one,  or  is  it  the  combination  of  all  the 
Pedo-baptist  establishments?  And  if  these  be  the  church, 
where  is  it  that  the  Baptists  separate  from  them  except 
where  the  Scriptures  bid  them  separate?  Mr.  Hall  would 
not  sprinkle  or  pour  water  on  a  person  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity.  He  would  not  baptize  an  unconscious  babe.  In 
these  things,  then,  he  separated  from  "the  church,"  in  his 
own  sense  of  that  term;  and  in  this  separation  was  he  not 
just  as  wrong  and  wicked  as  he  represents  his  brethren  to 
be,  for  separating  from  the  unbaptized  at  the  Lord's  table, 
as  Jesus  commanded  and  the  apostles  practised?  He  con- 
demns his  brethren  in  the  very  thing  which  he  allows. 
And  his  conclusion,  that  the  Baptists  must  attach  too  much 
importance  to  baptism,  is  emphatically  contradicted  by  their 
whole  history.  It  is  notorious  that  they  only  give  it  the 
same  prominence  which  it  has  in  the  New  Testament,  while 


UN8CRIPTURAL   AND   DELETERIOUS.  47 

the  Pedo-baptists  give  it  much  more.  The  Baptists  baptize 
none  but  believers;  they  practice  but  one  mode.  Pedo- 
baptists  baptize  believers  and  infants,  and  they  practice  three 
modes.  The  former  teach  that  baptism  is  a  sign  of  regenera- 
tion and  remission  of  sins  ;  the  latter  affirm,  that  it  is  a  sign 
and  a  seal  of  these  great  blessings  to  adults  and  infants,  and 
that  by  the  ordinance  a  person  is  made  a  member  of  the 
church  and  an  heir  of  God.  The  whole  statement  of  Mr. 
Hall  is  in  conflict  with  the  truth. 

Mr.  Hall  quotes  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Komans  (chapter 
14):  "We  that  are  strong  ought  to  bear  the  infirmities  of 
the  weak,  and  not  to  please  ourselves,"  &c,  and  thus  com- 
ments: 

"A  moment's  attention  to  the  connection  will  convince 
the  reader  that  the  term  weak  in  both  passages  denotes 
persons  whose  conceptions  are  erroneous,  for  the  inspired 
writer  is  not  adverting  to  the  different  degrees  of  conviction 
with  which  the  same  truths  are  embraced,  but  to  a  palpable 
difference  of  judgment.  Thus  far  the  case  decided  is  pre- 
cisely similar  to  that  under  present  discussion ;  our  difference 
from  the  Pedo-baptists  turns  on  the  nature  and  obligation  of 
a  positive  institution.  The  error  of  which  St.  Paul  enjoined 
the  toleration  consisted  in  adhering  to  certain  ceremonies 
which  had  been  abrogated;  the  error  with  which  we  are  con- 
cerned consists  in  mistaking  a  ceremony  which  is  still  in 
force.  Neither  of  the  ancient  nor  of  the  modern  error  is  it 
pretended  that  they  are  fundamental,  or  that  they  endanger 
the  salvation  of  those  who  hold  them.  Thus  far  they  stand 
on  the  same  footing,  and  the  presumption  is  they  ought  to 
be  treated  in  the  same  manner.  Before  we  come  to  this 
conclusion,  however,  it  behooves  us  to  examine  the  principle 
upon  which  the  apostle  enjoins  toleration,  and  if  this  is 


48  OPEN   COMMUNION   SHOWN   TO   BE 

applicable  in  its  full  extent  to  our  Pedo-baptist  brethren,  no 
room  is  left  for  doubt.  The  principle  plainly  is,  that  the 
error  in  question  was  not  of  sufficient  magnitude  as  to  pre- 
clude him  who  maintained  it  from  the  favor  of  God.  *  *  * 
If  such  is  the  reason  assigned  for  mutual  toleration  —  and  it 
is  acknowledged  to  be  a  sufficient  one — which  none  can 
deny  without  impeaching  the  inspiration  of  the  writer,  it  is 
so  conclusive  respecting  the  obligation  of  tolerating  every 
error  which  is  consistent  with  a  state  of  salvation,  as  if  that 
error  had  been  mentioned  by  name ;  and  as  few,  if  any,  are 
to  be  met  with  who  doubt  the  piety  of  many  Pedo-baptists, 
it  not  only  justifies  their  reception,  but  renders  it  an  indis- 
pensable duty."* 

Strange  that  a  disputant,  so  able  and  so  adroit  as  Mr.  Hall, 
did  not  see  that  the  conclusions  of  Paul  were  wholly  unlike 
his  own,  even  granting  that  they  were  deduced  from  the 
same  premises.  The  apostle,  for  example,  does  not  urge 
those  who  believed  it  right  to  eat  meat,  to  eat  only  herbs 
in  deference  to  those  who  believed  any  other  food  sinful. 
Nor  did  he  insist  that  those  who  believed  one  day  holier 
than  another,  should,  as  they  believed,  desecrate  the  day 
because  others  esteemed  every  day  alike.  On  the  contrary, 
he  taught  them  if  they  did  what  they  believed  to  be  wrong 
in  such  cases,  they  were  condemned.  "He  that  doubteth  is 
condemned  if  he  eat,  because  he  eateth  not  of  faith;  for 
whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin."  His  exhortation  was,  not 
that  they  should  all  eat  together,  or  all  observe  the  same 
days,  for  he  declares  that  this  could  not  be  without  sin ;  but 
let  them  each  act  according  to  their  conscience,  and  not  one 
party  condemn  the  other  as  sinners  for  merely  following 
their  judgments  in  matters  very  trivial  at  best.  But  not  so 
*  Pp.  223,  224. 


UNSCRIPTURAL    AND   DELETERIOUS.  49 

argues  Mr.  Hall.  The  Pedo-baptists  believe  that  sprinkling 
•water  in  the  face  of  an  unconscious  babe,  is  a  fulfilment 
of  the  command:  "Make  disciples  of  the  nations,  baptizing 
them,"  &c, — that  is,  that  such  a  ceremony  is  Christian  bap- 
tism. The  Baptists  believe  it  is  not  baptism.  Now,  Mr. 
Hall  comes,  but  not  like  Paul,  to  urge  us  to  mutual  for- 
bearance; but  to  tell  us  that  the  Pedo-baptists  are  not  bap- 
tized indeed,  but  that  we  ought  to  treat  them  as  if  they  were, 
and  consider  them  as  baptized.  In  other  words,  we  ought 
to  regulate  our  consciences  by  theirs!  Our  convictions  of 
what  is  right,  and  what  he  grants  to  be  scriptural  and  divine, 
he  would  have  us  cast  to  the  moles  and  the  bats,  that  we  may 
please  those  in  error !  Our  doubts  will  not  injure  us,  as  the 
apostle  argues.  We  may  act  without  faith,  and  treat  as  true 
what  we  most  assuredly  believe  to  be  false !  What  could  be 
more  opposite  to  the  apostolic  doctrines? 

Again :  The  apostle  is  arguing  in  favor  of  a  friendly 
separation  in  practice.  Mr.  Hall  quotes  him  as  if  he  urged 
them  to  eat  the  same  things  and  observe  the  same  days. 
Paul  urged  forbearance,  but  not  conformity,  to  the  senti- 
ments of  the  weak;  Mr.  Hall  insists  upon  absolute  con- 
formity. Paul  forbid  any  action  subversive  of  full  and 
settled  conviction,  and  shows  that  such  action  would  involve 
awful  guilt;  Mr.  Hall  urges  that  such  an  action  is  a  sacred 
duty,  and  commends  it  as  divinely  amiable  in  its  ends  and 
impulses. 

Nor  do  the  conclusions  of  Mr.  Hall,  in  their  consequences, 
end  here.  Paul  was  arguing  in  relation  to  matters  respect- 
ing the  observance  of  which,  there  was  no  real  obligation. 
They  were  matters  of  indifference  —  of  mere  whim  or  fancy. 
They  had  no  divine  obligation,  and  involved  no  precept  or 
practice  authorized  by  divine  sanction.      Mr.   Hall  admits 

5 


50  OPEN   COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

this;  and  concludes  hence,  that  a  divine  command  should 
be  esteemed  as  a  matter  of  indifference — that  a  sacrament 
of  the  New  Testament  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ  belongs  to 
the  same  category  -with  the  meats  and  days  mentioned  by  the 
apostle  as  mere  matters  of  whim  or  fancy!  And  if  this  is 
true  of  baptism  —  if  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  may  be  regarded  as  a 
thing  indifferent;  why,  so  may  the  Lord's  Supper.  It,  too, 
is  a  positive  institution.  It  can  claim  no  holier  origin  nor 
an  authority  more  divine  than  can  baptism.  Then  why  all 
this  ado  about  the  Eucharist?  Seeing  there  is  so  much  con- 
troversy about  it,  why  not  neglect  its  celebration  altogether? 
Why  not  say  of  it  what  Paul  said  of  days:  if  Christians 
regard  the  Supper,  they  regard  it  unto  the  Lord;  and  if 
they  regard  not  the  Supper,  to  the  Lord  they  do  not  regard 
it?  Upon  his  own  principles,  all  Mr.  Hall's  earnest  declama- 
tion on  the  Eucharist,  is  a  most  farcical  ado  about  nothing! 
But  upon  what  principles  can  Mr.  Hall  or  any  other  man 
insist,  that  the  advocacy  and  the  practice  of  infant  sprinkling 
is  an  "error  consistent  with  the  state  of  salvation,  and 
which,  consequently,  it  is  our  indispensable  duty  to  tolerate? 
Do  the  Scriptures  any  where  teach  that  the  violation  of  any 
of  the  commandments  of  God  is  a  harmless  error?  Is  not 
the  duty  to  believe  and  be  baptized  as  sacred  and  as  divine 
as  the  duty  to  observe  the  Sabbath  and  to  forbear  the  adora- 
tion of  images?  And  how  many  millions  have  been  involved 
in  awful  and  guilty  delusion  by  the  mummery  of  infant  sprink- 
ling? Multitudes  at  this  day  —  perhaps  much  the  largest 
proportion  of  those  who  bear  the  Christian  name  —  believe 
that  the  water  sprinkled  upon  them  in  unconscious  infancy, 
regenerated  their  souls,  made  them  members  of  the  church 
and  heirs  of  salvation;  and  upon  this  fatal  and  monstrotie 


UNSCRIPTURAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  51 

error  they  are  building  their  hopes  for  the  eternal  world  of 
joy  and  peace.  And  is  it  our  "indispensable  duty"  to  com- 
mune with  this  delusion?  to  bid  welcome  to  a  system  that 
has  sent  its  untold  millions  to  perdition,  and  is  still  leading 
millions  more  into  certain  and  eternal  destruction  —  a  sys- 
tem that  ignores  the  cardinal  truths  of  Christianity,  and 
teaches  its  victims  that  a  mere  rite  performed  upon  an 
unconscious  infant,  does  that  which  the  Bible  assures  us  can 
only  be  effected  by  the  spirit  of  grace?  The  history  of  the 
rite  shows,  that  infant  sprinkling  has,  according  to  its  pre- 
valence, been  as  pregnant  in  its  baleful  influences,  and  as 
ruinous  to  the  spiritual  interests  of  men,  as  even  idolatry 
itself.  It  has  not  only  mislead  its  millions  into  fatal  and 
everlasting  mistakes,  but  it  has  superseded  believers'  bap- 
tism, united  church  and  state,  brought  reproach  upon  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  and  filled  the  world  with  blood  and 
errors.  It  is  the  pillar  of  Popery.  By  it  whole  nations 
indiscriminately,  without  any  regard  to  moral  character — 
drunkards,  debauchees,  liars,  swearers,  cheats,  and  knaves, 
together  with  the  virtuous  and  the  good — are  mingled  in 
a  common  membership,  and  regarded  alike  as  constituent 
portions  of  the  true  church  of  God  visible  upon  earth.  And 
are  we  to  be  told  that  it  is  our  "indispensable  duty"  to  com- 
mune with  all  these?  And  this  we  must  do,  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  Mr.  Hall. 

Or  must  we  draw  a  distinction  between  true  and  false 
Pedo-baptism?  Must  we  affect  that  puritanism  so  hateful 
in  the  eyes  of  Mr.  Hall,  and  commune  with  one  kind  of 
infant  baptism  and  reject  another?  If  so,  what  is  this  but 
close  communion?  Mr.  H.  is  careful  all  the  time  to  speak 
of  the  "piety  of  many  Pedo-baptists."  He  is  eulogistic  of 
their  zeal  for  the  truth  and  their  reverence  for  revelation. 


52  OPEN   COMMUNION   SHOWN   TO   BE 

And  perhaps  it  is  only  to  such  he  would  extend  the  emblems 
of  the  Eucharist.  But  why  should  he  stop  here?  By  what 
authority  does  he  do  these,  things?  Having  discarded  the 
letter  of  the  commission  and  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  and 
led  us  to  seek  another  than  the  light  of  the  Bible  as  the  rule 
of  our  conduct,  by  what  rule  would  he  have  us  observe  the 
Lord's  Supper?  He  must  become  our  lawgiver,  and  pre- 
scribe the  conduct  we  must  adopt  towards  those  who  may 
claim  admission  to  the  sacred  table.  Would  he  admit  all 
who  profess  the  Christian  name,  and  assert  their  right  to 
partake  of  the  Eucharist?  If  not,  what  portion  would  he 
exclude?  If  he  would  admit  only  the  pious  and  the  good, 
how  are  we  to  ascertain  who  these  are?  And  then  there  is 
such  a  variety  of  sentiment  on  this  particular  subject.  One 
generation  has  canonizod  some  as  saints,  which  another 
generation  has  loathed  and  rejected  as  imposters,  enthusiasts, 
fanatics,  or  monsters  of  iniquity.  Protestants  and  Baptists 
differ  immensely  in  their  estimates  of  Christian  character; 
and  even  among  the  most  earnest  and  orthodox  opponents 
of  Popery,  there  does  not  exist  any  great  harmony  of  senti- 
ment in  relation  to  this  point.  The  Lutheran,  the  Episco- 
palian, the  Presbyterian,  and  the  Methodist,  could  never 
agree  upon  a  standard  of  Christian  deportment.  And  per- 
haps the  rules  which  may  have  regulated  Mr.  Hall's  pro- 
ceedings, would  receive  little  favor  from  any  other  man  in 
Christendom.  And  we  can  not  tell  but  he  might  draw 
puritanical  lines  among  the  Pedo-baptists — separating  the 
precious  from  the  vile — that  even  the  Pedo-baptists  would 
disallow. 

Baptists,  we  again  affirm,  are  not  mistaken  on  the  bap- 
tismal question.  They  profess  to  know  and  to  do  the  will 
nf  God.     It  is  their  duty,  of  course,  to  be  kind  and  forbear- 


UN8CRIPTURAL   AND   DELETERIOUS.  63 

ing  to  those  in  error  on  this  subject;  but  it  would  be  crim- 
inal in  them  to  encourage  even  the  most  amiable  and  pincere 
Christian  to  violate  the  least  commandment  of  God.  They 
dare  not  teach  men  that  it  is  a  light  thing  to  disregard  a 
solemn  institution  of  the  gospel.  They  would  be  recreant 
to  the  truth  and  unfaithful  stewards  of  the  manifold  riches 
of  Christ,  if  they  were  to  fellowship  the  abominations  of 
infant  baptism,  or  in  any  way  sanction  the  burlesque  rite  of 
sprinkling.  Sprinkling  may,  to  the  unpracticed  eye,  wear 
all  the  innocence  and  harmlessness  of  the  lamb,  but  it 
speaks  like  a  dragon.  At  this  hour  it  closes  the  hands  of 
thousands  of  benevolent  Christians,  who  would,  if  not  hin- 
dered, give  the  Bible  to  the  millions  perishing  in  Burmah. 
The  sacred  Scriptures,  in  languages  of  the  Burmese  and 
other  nations  of  India,  have  been  translated,  teaching  the 
heathen  the  way  of  life  and  salvation ;  but  the  friends  of 
sprinkling  will  not  aid  in  their  circulation,  because  in  them 
baptism  is  rendered  by  a  word  signifying  immersion.  And 
yet  these  same  persons  declare  that  the  mode  of  baptism  is  a 
non-essential,  and  are  wont  constantly  to  fellowship  those 
who  have  been  immersed!  So  blinding  are  the  influences 
of  sprinkling,  that  it  makes  a  non-essential  more  important 
than  the  salvation  of  souls. 

Mr.  Hall  charges  us  with  being  inconsistent,  because  we 
fellowship  the  Pcdo-baptists  in  some  things,  and  yet  not  at 
the  Lord's  table.     He  says: 

"In  a  variety  of  instances  they  indulge  themselves  in 
those  acts  of  communion  with  Pedo-baptists  which  are  pecu- 
liar to  Christians :  they  frequently  make  them  their  mouth 
in  addressing  the  Deity;  they  exchange  pulpits;  and  even 
engage  their  assistance  in  exercises  intended  as  a  preparation 
for  the  eucharist;  and  after  lighting  the  flame  of  devotion  at 


64  OPEN   COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

their  torch,  they  most  preposterously  turn  round  to  inform 
them  they  are  not  worthy  to  participate.  It  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  convince  a  stranger  to  our  practice  that  it  were  pos- 
sible to  be  guilty  of  such  an  absurdity."* 

These  censures  are  as  unjust  as  they  are  unkind  and 
uncharitable.  There  is  no  inconsistency  —  nothing  prepos- 
terous or  absurd  in  the  instance  supposed.  The  Baptists 
are  wont  to  cultivate  feelings  of  Christian  courtesy  and  kind- 
ness towards  all  who  wear  the  name  of  their  Master,  and 
especially  towards  such  as  manifest  his  spirit.  In  a  word, 
they  walk  with  every  man  in  the  things  of  religion,  just  as 
far  as  the  Bible  permits,  and  no  farther.  There  is  not  a 
hint  in  the  Scriptures  that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  the  Pedo- 
baptists,  as  well  as  every  man,  to  pray.  Is  there  any  thing 
absurd  or  preposterous,  then,  in  Baptists  inviting  them  to 
pray — to  discharge  a  sacred  duty  to  God  and  their  own 
souls?  And  then,  too,  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  who 
loves  Jesus,  and  can,  to  preach  the  gospel.  We  are  not  of 
those  to  hinder  others  from  doing  good  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  because  they  walk  not  with  us.  But  rather,  if  the 
gospel  be  preached,  no  matter  if  from  envy  and  strife,  we 
ought  to  rejoice,  and  we  do  rejoice,  that  it  is  preached.  This 
is  in  perfect  accordance  with  Bible  precept  and  practice. 
We  have  a  divine  warrant  from  it.  There  is  not  an  intima- 
tion in  all  the  Bible  to  deter  any  conscientious  and  con- 
sistent Christian  from  laboring  with  any  and  every  man, 
when  he  may  do  so  without  violating  a  divine  precept.  And 
we  would"  cheerfully  go  with  such  persons  to  the  Lord's 
table,  did  not  the  Lord  himself  ordain  otherwise. 

The  parallel  attempted  by  Mr.  H.  is  no  parallel.     There 
is  not  the  slightest  analogy  in  the  cases.     The  Baptists,  in 

•  P.  225. 


USBCRIPTURAI.    AND    DELETERIOTa.  00 

each  case,  act  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  Scriptures.  To 
establish  the  charge  of  inconsistency,  it  was  incumbent  upon 
him  to  show  that  in  the  matter  of  inviting  pious  Pedo-bap- 
tists  to  pray  and  preach,  and  engage  in  similar  religious 
exercises,  we  annulled  a  positive  ordinance  of  the  gospel  and 
discarded  the  whole  tenor  of  apostolic  practice.  But  this  is 
not  pretended.  Then  we  are  consistent,  and  the  charge  to 
the  contrary  is  preposterous  and  absurd.  We  take  the  Bible 
as  the  man  of  our  counsel  in  both  cases.  Its  light  illumines 
our  pathway,  and  walking  by  it,  our  conduct  must  be  right, 
and,  consequently,  consistent. 

But,  could  this  charge  of  inconsistency  be  established, 
it  would  not  follow  that  unbaptized  persons  ought  to  be 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  table.  Such  admission  would  nullify 
the  divine  law,  which  makes  it  imperative  that  believers 
should  be  baptized  before  entering  into  the  church  or  enjoy- 
ing its  privileges.  The  utmost  such  logic  could  accomplish 
would  be  the  discontinuance  of  those  courtesies  and  of  so 
much  of  Christian  communion  as  more  abundantly  obtain 
among  the  Baptists  and  the  Pedo-baptist,  than  among  the 
Pedo-baptists  in  their  associations  with  each  other.  It  could 
do  this  and  no  more.  For,  until  the  right  to  abolish  the 
law  of  baptism  can  be  maintained,  whether  for  communion 
or  any  other  purpose,  Mr.  Hall  utterly  fails  to  make  any 
progress  in  his  cause,  except  by  specious  sophistry  and 
sounding  declamation.  He  must  show  his  authority  as  a 
nullifier  of  a  divine  law — produce  his  right  divine  to  obliter- 
ate from  the  gospel  commission  the  ordinance  of  baptism  as 
instituted  by  him  who  had  all  power  in  heaven  and  upon 
earth,  or  his  conquest  is  a  barren  heath.  And  if  he  may 
thus  "change  times  and  laws"  like  the  prophetical  anti- 
christ—  if  he  may  nullify  this  law — why  not  all  the  com- 


66  OPEN    CoaIM  UNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

mandments  of  the  Decalogue;  aye,  why  not  discard  the 
Bible,  contemn  every  thing  which  Jesus  commanded,  and 
assume  to  be  the  lawgiver  and  king  in  Zion?  His  consis- 
tency will  force  him  thus  far.  Baptists  walk  with  the  Pedo- 
baptists  as  far  as  the  Bible  will  let  them.  They  go  on  in 
friendship  and  fellowship  until  they  come  near  to  the  Lord's 
table  as  the  Lord  himself  set  it  out.  It  is  on  the  other  side  of 
the  water.  The  Baptists  go  through  the  water  in  obedience  to 
the  divine  command.  The  Pedo-baptists  will  not  go  through 
the  water.  Mr.  Hall  says,  that  the  Baptists  ought  to  turn 
back,  and  remove  the  table  from  the  place  where  the  Lord 
placed  it  when  he  was  about  to  ascend  into  heaven,  to 
accommodate  those  who  will  not  go  through  the  water.  And 
because  the  Baptists  will  not  do  this  —  because  they  will  not 
alter  and  change  what  God  has  established  —  Mr.  Hall  raises 
the  cry  of  inconsistency  and  charges  that  their  conduct  is 
absurd  and  preposterous,  because  they  walk  voluntarily  with 
the  Pedo-baptists  where  the  Bible  tells  them  to  walk,  but 
will  not  walk  where  it  forbids.  May  the  Lord  make  them 
yet  more  famous  for  vach  inconsistency.  But  he  charges 
inconsistency  upon  the  Baptists  from  another  consideration: 
"They  acknowledge  that  many  Pedo-baptists  stand  high 
in  the  favor  of  God;  enjoy  intimate  communion  with  the 
Redeemer;  and  would,  on  their  removal  hence,  be  instan- 
taneously admitted  to  glory.  Now,  it  seems  the  suggestion 
of  common  sense,  that  the  greater  includes  the  less,  that 
they  who  have  a  title  to  the  most  sublime  privileges  of 
Christianity,  the  favor  of  God,  the  fellowship  of  Christ,  and 
the  hope  of  glory,  must  be  unquestionably  entitled  to  that 
ordinance  whose  sole  design  is  to  prepare  us  for  the  perfect 
fruition  of  these  blessings."* 

*  P.  226. 


l.N^CRTMTKAL    AN1>   DELETERIOUS.  57 

This  is  one  of  those  logical  fallacies  which  prove  nothing, 
because  they  prove  too  much.  We  suppose  it  is  acknow- 
ledged, that  what  is  here  assumed  as  true  of  "many  Pedo- 
baptists,"  may  just  as  well  be  assumed  as  true  of  "many" 
who  never  belonged  to  any  religious  persuasions,  and  of 
"many"  who  belong  to  all  religious  persuasions.  Thus  not 
only  is  the  ordinance  of  baptism  annulled,  but  the  church 
itself  is  demolished.  Persons  out  of  the  church  —  Papists, 
Armenians,  Greeks,  and  every  denomination  —  have  the 
right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  if  they  are  supposed  to 
be  fit  for  heaven.  Nay,  it  can  not  stop  here.  All  except 
some  Pedo-baptists  believe,  that  infants  dying  in  infancy 
are  "instantaneously  admitted  to  glory."  As  a  matter  of 
course,  the  consistency  of  Mr.  Hall  must  force  him  into  the 
advocacy  and  the  practice  of  infant  communion !  In  one 
word,  Mr.  Hall  opposes  that  consistency  which  preserves 
inviolate  every  institution  of  the  Lord's  house  —  which  will 
not  discard  the  baptism  of  believers  at  any  sacrifice  of  ease, 
or  safety,  or  feeling;  whilst  he  advocates  a  consistency  which 
subverts  at  the  Lord's  table  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  obliter- 
ates all  the  landmarks  of  the  church  established  by  Jehovah, 
and  discards  all  distinctions  between  truth  and  error,  between 
those  who  serve  God  and  those  who  serve  him  not  in  the 
institutions  of  his  own  appointment!  The  former  he  calls 
"party  communion;"  the  latter  he  dignifies  with  the  appella- 
tion of  "Christian  communion." 

Mr.  Hall  having  thus  met,  as  he  supposed,  the  arguments 
of  his  opponents,  proceeds  to  enumerate  his  objections  to 
their  practice.  "The  first  effect,"  says  he,  page  226,  "neces- 
sarily resulting  from  it,  is  a  powerful  prejudice  against  the 
party  who  adopt  it.  *  #  *  #  The  very  appellation  of 
Baptist,  together  with  the  tenets  by  which  it  is  designated, 


58  v>pen  coiiiirNioN  shown  xo  be 

become  associated  with  the  idea  of  bigotry ;  nor  will  it  per- 
mit the  mind  which  entertains  that  prejudice  to  give  an 
impartial  attention  to  the  evidence  by  which  our  sentiments 
are  supported."  Admit  all  this  to  be  so,  and  it  does  not 
shake  the  firm  foundation  upon  which  we  stand.  If  adhering 
uncompromisingly  to  the  truth,  if  walking  in  all  the  ordi- 
nances and  commandments  of  the  Lord  blameless,  bring 
upon  us  reproach  and  hatred,  instead  of  ceasing  from  that 
course,  we  should  rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad.  Ours  is 
the  great  reward  promised  those  persecuted  for  righteous- 
ness' sake.  Mr.  Hall's  position,  legitimately  pursued,  would 
pour  reproach  upon  the  primitive  Christians  who  persisted 
in  preaching  Christ  crucified,  although  it  was  to  the  Jews  a 
stunibling-block  and  to  the  Greeks  foolishness.  It  is  one 
part  of  the  inheritance  of  the  people  of  Christ  on  earth  to  be 
hated  for  his  sake.  This  objection  only  makes  more  per- 
manent and  more  powerful  our  position. 

Mr.  Hall  objects  again:  "By  the  stern  rejection  of  the 
members  of  all  other  denominations  until  they  have  embraced 
our  distinguishing  tenets,  what  do  we  propose  to  effect — to 
intimidate  or  convince?  We  can  do  neither."*  And  we 
propose  to  do  neither.  The  Supper  was  not  instituted  for 
the  purpose  of  proselyting.  The  man  who  partakes  of  the 
mystic  emblems  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Savior  to  win 
the  esteem  and  to  secure  the  approval  of  Pedo-baptists, 
mocks  a  divine  institution,  and  partakes  of  it  not  discerning 
the  Lord's  body.  In  celebrating  the  gospel  ordinances,  we 
should  seek  to  observe  them  as  they  were  delivered  to  us  by 
divine  authority,  and  to  do  so  with  an  intent  to  please  God 
and  not  man.  In  approaching  the  Lord's  table,  we  should 
examine  ourselves  and  not  the  Pedo-baptists.  We  Bhould 
*  P.  227. 


UN8CRIPTURAL  AND  DELETERIOUS.  59 

partake  in  remembrance  of  the  Savior  to  show  forth  his 
death  till  he  come,  and  not  to  gain  the  smiles  or  the  applause 
of  men.  And  in  doing  this,  we  need  not  sternly  reject  any 
one.  It  is  not  our  business  to  invite  or  debar  any  per- 
son. The  Lord  spread  the  table,  and  he  alone  invites,  and 
he  alone  has  the  right  to  debar  from  coming.  His  law  is 
the  rule  which  must  govern  its  approach.  We  are  but  his 
servants.  We  have  a  right  to  invite  those  only  whom  he 
invites.  In  this  matter  we  adhere  strictly  to  the  law.  If, 
by  our  obeying  it,  any  are  offended,  they  quarrel  with  the 
regulations  ordained  by  infinite  goodness.  We  neither 
instituted  the  Supper  nor  prescribed  its  regulations.  If  any 
are  intimidated  or  convinced  by  these  things,  it  is  but  the 
necessary  result  of  a  divine  institution. 

Mr.  Hall  continues  to  object  on  the  same  page:  "By  this 
preposterous  conduct,  we  do  all  in  our  power  to  place  our 
Pedo-baptist  brethren  beyond  conviction.  Since  it  is  un- 
reasonable to  expect,  however  attractive  the  ministry,  that  a 
pious  Pedo-baptist  will  statedly  attend  where  he  must  despair 
of  ever  becoming  a  member,  and  of  enjoying  the  privileges 
to  which  every  serious  person  is  supposed  to  aspire,  he 
attaches  himself  as  a  necessary  consequence  to  a  connection 
in  which  there  is  no  such  impediment,  but  where  he  is  cer- 
tain of  hearing  nothing  but  what  will  foster  his  prejudices 
and  confirm  his  error." 

Such  a  Pedo-baptist  would  be  a  very  unreasonable  man. 
He  would  demand  of  the  Baptists  to  do  what  neither  he  nor 
any  of  his  brethren  ever  did,  viz.,  to  admit  the  unbaptized 
to  communion.  If  he  should  become  disgusted  at  the  Bap- 
tists for  this,  he  would  necessarily  become  disgusted  with  his 
own  brethren;  and  if  he  left  us  on  this  account,  for  the 
eame   reason   he   could   remain   in    no  other   Pedo-baptist 


60  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    UK 

denomination ;  for  Mr.  Hall  confesses  that  in  this  matter  we 
differ  not  one  whit  from  the  Pedo-baptists. 

But  this  objection  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  other. 
It  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
should  be  celebrated  to  please  and  to  proselyte  the  Pedo- 
baptists.  And  admitting  this  to  be  so,  what  has  expe- 
rience taught  in  reference  to  the  success  of  the  plan  advo- 
cated by  Mr.  Hall  and  the  one  opposed  by  him?  Why,  the 
experiment  has  settled  the  question  against  Mr.  Hall  beyond 
all  controversy.  The  strict  Baptists,  in  this  country  espe- 
cially, are  more  esteemed  by  the  Pedo-baptists  than  their 
opposing  brethren.  And  they  are  far  more  numerous  and 
prosperous.  Hundreds  from  the  Pedo-baptists  join  the 
former  to  one  who  join  the  latter.  In  the  short  recollection 
of  the  writer  of  these  pages,  several  hundred  ministers  of  the 
various  Pedo-baptist  persuasions  have  become  strict  Baptists; 
while  very  few,  if  any,  in  this  country,  have  joined  the  other 
sort  of  Baptists.  Those  facts  subvert  utterly  the  theory  of 
Mr.  Hall.  Intelligent  and  reflecting  men  among  the  Pedo- 
baptists  charge  error  and  inconsistency  upon  the  Open 
Communion  Baptists;  and,  hence,  throughout  the  United 
States,  blasting  and  mildew  follow  in  their  footsteps.  They 
do  not  get  over  that  which  they  seek  after  —  the  applause 
and  affection  of  their  Pedo-baptist  neighbors.  God  never 
will  bless  those  who  understandingly  connive  at  the  neglect 
of  his  eoinnmndnienfs. 

We  have  heard  quoted  what  Mr.  Hibbard  says  respecting 
the  course  of  Kobert  Hall.  Years  ago,  in  our  boyhood,  we 
remember  to  have  been  present  on  a  sacramental  occasion  at 
a  Presbyterian  church  in  Jessamine  county,  Ky.  Dr.  Fish- 
back  and  Dr.  Blackburn  preached  at  the  meeting;  two  of 
the  most  eloquent  ministers  that  ever  adorned  the  Kentucky 


UNSCRIPTUUAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  61 

pulpit.  Dr.  Fishback  was  an  Open  Communion  Baptist. 
He  had  but  recently  separated  from  his  brethren  on  that 
question.  On  the  Sabbath,  when  the  Supper  was  about  to 
be  administered,  Dr.  Blackburn  made  some  remarks  oji  its 
institution  and  design.  He  then  extended  a  very  qualified 
invitation  to  members  of  other  denominations,  and  took 
occasion  to  remark,  that  there  were  some  of  a  certain  sect 
who  were  willing  to  commune  with  the  Presbyterians  as 
unbaptized  Christians.  For  himself,  he  said,  he  did  not 
thank  such  persons  for  their  communion.  He  did  not  know 
how  to  appreciate  a  charity  which  would  meet  them  at  the 
Lord's  table  by  unchurching  them.  Dr.  Fishback  was  then 
sitting  in  the  pulpit.  He  did  not  partake.  He  told  me 
afterwards  that  he  regarded  the  remarks  as  intended  for  him, 
and  that  they  were  in  bad  taste  and  offensive.  Dr.  Fishback 
was  an  able,  pious,  and  eloquent  divine.  He  was  one  of  the 
most  amiable  and  fascinating  men  we  ever  knew.  Yet  he 
utterly  failed  in  his  open  communion.  Upon  that  rock  he 
made  a  shipwreck  of  his  usefulness.  The  same  is  the 
mournful  history  of  Robert  Hall  himself.  The  most  gifted 
and  powerful  of  contemporary  ministers  in  England,  his 
influence  was  as  the  Lybian  blast  upon  the  Baptist  churches 
of  that  country.  Indeed,  Mr.  Hall  seems  to  advocate  hia 
system  because  it  tends  to  the  ultimate  destruction  of  the 
Baptist  denomination.     He  says: 

"  Of  the  tendency  of  mixed  communion  to  promote  a  more 
candid  inquiry  into  our  principles,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 
doubt;  whether  it  would  have  the  effect  of  rapidly  extending 
the  Baptist  denomination,  as  such,  is  less  certain.  For  were 
that  practice  universally  to  prevail,  the  mixture  of  Baptists 
and  Pedo-baptists  in  Christian  societies  would  probably  ere 
long  be  such,  that  the  appellation  of  Baptist  might  be  found 


62  OPEN   COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

not  so  properly  applicable  to  churches  as  to  individuals, 
■while  some  more  comprehensive  term  might  possibly  be  em- 
ployled  to  discriminate  the  views  of  collective  bodies.  But 
what  then?  Are  we  contending  for  names  or  for  things?"* 
And  upon  Mr.  Hall's  theory,  of  what  value  are  "  our  prin- 
ciples?" What  are  they  but  mere  speculative  bubbles, 
utterly  and  contemptibly  worthless  for  all  practical  pur- 
poses? With  him,  it  matters  not  whether  a  believer  be  im- 
mersed into  the  name  of  the  triune  God ;  or  whether  a 
worthless  person  in  helpless  babyhood  has  had  some  water 
and  oil  poured  by  Papal  priest,  or  midwife,  or  scullion,  upon 
its  forehead  and  eyebrows ;  or  whether  upon  the  responses 
of  ghostly  parents  water  simply  has  been  poured  upon  the 
little  head  by  an  Episcopal  prelate,  priest,  or  deacon;  or 
whether  he  has  had  water  sprinkled  or  poured  upon  him  by 
a  Methodist  or  a  Presbyterian  minister ;  any  one  of  all  these 
things  entitles  him  to  membership  in  the  church,  according 
to  Mr.  Hall.  It  is  our  "duty"  to  recognize  any  such  per- 
son, if  pious  and  if  fit  for  the  kingdom  of  glory,  as  truly  and 
properly  a  member  of  the  church  established  by  the  Lord  in 
the  gospel !  We  ask  again,  with  an  apology  to  our  readers 
for  submitting  a  question  so  self-evident,  if  this  is  not  a 
total  surrender  of  "our  principles" — if  it  is  not  putting 
them  upon  a  par  with  every  form  of  infant  sprinkling — if  it 
does  not  present  us  to  the  world  in  the  ridiculous  and 
bigoted  attitude  of  contending  for  matters  of  empty  form  — 
for  a  trifle  light  as  air?  And  what  victory  can  we  hope  for 
':our  principles,"  after  thus  ingloriously  surrendering  them? 
And  what  would  such  a  victory  be  worth?  Who  would 
covet  the  renown  of  achieving  a  phantom,  or  conquering  a 
barren  waste?     It  is  hard  to  conceive  of  an  attitude  more 

*  P.  228. 


UNSCRIPTURAL    AND   DELETERIOUS.  63 

ridiculous,  preposterous,  and  absurd,  than  that  in  which  Mr. 
Hall  proposes  to  place  the  Baptist  denomination.  And  then 
how  visionary  and  dreamy  his  hopes  of  success.  He  antici- 
pates great  triumph  .  to  "our  principles."  by  ingloriously 
yielding  them  to  his  opponents  as  empty  trifles !  He  is  the 
vanquished  general,  arrayed  in  his  military  costume,  with 
his  glittering  armor  and  trenchant  sword,  riding  in  the  train 
of  his  conquerors  to  whom  he  has  surrendered,  and  to  the 
lustre  of  whose  achievements  his  presence  lends  delightful 
and  delirious  applause.  He  may  still  affect  the  feelings  and 
the  part  of  a  conqueror;  but,  like  Bajazet  in  his  iron  cape, 
his  affectation  will  but  afford  mirth  and  laughter  to  the 
victors.  Mr.  Hall,  triumphant  in  his  theory  of  mixed  com- 
munion, is  Sampson  shorn  of  his  strength  and  bereft  of  his 
vision — he  is  powerless  and  blind — the  scorn  and  contempt 
of  his  enemies.  Nor  can  he  hope  that  his  locks  may  grow, 
so  that  in  one  last  blind  struggle  he  may  grapple  the  pillars 
of  his  enemies'  system,  and  destroy  himself  and  them  by  a 
final  and  fatal  overthrow ;  for  his  strength  is  hopelessly 
gone. 

But  let  us  look  at  the  modus  operandi  of  his  mixed  com- 
munion. Baptists  and  Pedo-baptists  are  members  of  the 
same  church.  A  Baptist  minister  is  their  pastor.  A  Pedo- 
baptist  member  and  mother  solicits  him  to  sprinkle  her 
infant.  He  declines,  alleging  the  want  of  Bible  authority. 
"Why,"  she  replies,  "I  was  thus  baptized  when  an  infant, 
and  you  have  received  me  into  the  church,  and  why  can  not 
you  prepare  my  child  for  reception  in  the  same  way?  If 
you  can  receive  those  thus  baptized,  why  can  you  not  baptize 
them  in  that  way?"  In  vain  does  he  urge  her  to  "a  more 
candid  inquiry  into  our  principles?"  She  can  not  see  why 
those  principles  should  receive  her  infant  baptism,  and  deny 


64  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    TSE 

baptism  to  her  sweet,  precious  little  babe.  She  ia  sure  it  is 
just  as  fit  a  subject  for  baptism  as  herself  or  any  b&dy  else; 
for  no  mother  was  ever  blessed  with  an  infant  more  lovely. 
And  then  she  begins  to  cry;  and  suppose  her  infant  should 
die  without  baptism  —  it  might  be  lost — and  what  sort  of  a 
pastor  is  he  who  cares  nothing  for  the  souls  01  little  child- 
ren. She  is  sure  that  Mr.  Sprinkler  of  the  Pedo-baptist 
church  will  not  be  so  unfeeling.  She  will  go  to  him  and 
join  his  church;  that  she  will.  She  tells  her  story  to  the 
Pedo-baptists  in  the  church,  and  they,  of  course,  are  awfully 
shocked  at  the  cruelty  of  their  pastor.  Quite  a  number  of 
the  Baptists,  especially  mothers,  can  not  see  what  harm  it 
would  have  done;  and  they  do  think  the  pastor  might  have 
been  more  humane,  and  gratified  the  mother.  If  it  did  the 
child  no  good,  it  would  do  it  no  harm.  Were  not  some  of 
the  very  best  members  in  the  church  baptized  in  infancy? 
They  could  not  see  why  their  pastors  should  be  more  rigid 
than  others.  There  was  Mr.  Sprinkler;  he  would  immerse 
people  if  they  desired  to  be  immersed.  They  could  see  no 
use  in  such  bigotry.  So,  off  goes  quite  a  party  to  Mr. 
Sprinkler's  church.  And  perhaps  those  who  remain,  seeing 
the  church  going  down  under  the  Baptist  pastor,  determine 
upon  a  change.  He  is  dismissed,  and  a  Pedo-baptist  minis- 
ter is  called  in  his  stead;  for  only  such  a  minister  is  adapted 
to  the  wants  of  such  a  congregation.  Such  is  the  legitimate 
and  natural  result  of  mixed  communion.  It  is  deadly 
hostile  to  the  peace  and  existence  of  Baptist  churches. 
It  is  more  destructive  to  them  than  all  the  engines  of  per- 
secution ever  wielded  against  them.  It  is  emphatically 
suicidal. 

Nor  is  this  a  fancy  sketch.     Its  original  may  be  found  in 
the  history  of  many  Baptist  churches  that  have  practiced 


UNSCRIPTURAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  65 

mixed  communion.  Kinghon,  J.  G.  Fuller,  and  others,  in 
reply  to  Robert  Hall,  refer  to  such  instances  as  the  follow- 
ing, in  proof  of  the  ruinous  consequences  of  mixed  com- 
munion to  the  Baptist  cause  in  England. 

John  Bunyan  was  an  advocate  of  open  communion.  No 
better  and  no  more  gifted  minister  ever  occupied  the  Baptist 
pulpit.  The  necessities  of  his  system  forced  him,  of  course, 
to  receive  Pedo-baptists  as  members  into  his  church.  As 
able  and  as  moving  as  he  was  in  preaching,  he  did  little  to 
build  up  the  cause.  He  did  not  succeed  even  in  winning 
his  own  flock  into  admiration  of  "our  principles."  Upon 
his  death,  a  Pedo-baptist  minister  was  called  to  succeed  him. 
And  his  pulpit  was  filled  by  Pedo-baptists  for  a  hundred 
years.  Then  one  of  his  successors  changed  his  sentiments 
and  became  a  Baptist.  But  this  one,  Mr.  Symonds,  was 
permitted  to  retain  his  pastoral  relation,  on  the  condition 
that  he  was  not  to  introduce  the  baptismal  controversy  into 
the  pulpit,  nor  even  into  conversation,  unless  it  was  first 
mentioned  by  others.  He  was  succeeded  by  Pedo-baptists. 
On  two  occasions,  in  the  early  part  of  the  last  century,  this 
church  refused  letters  of  dismission  to  members  who  wished 
to  unite  with  Baptist  churches  in  London,  because  they 
were  strict  communion  churches! 

And  Mr.  Hall  commends  open  communion  to  the  Baptists 
as  the  most  potent  of  all  instrumentalities  to  win  other 
denominations  over  to  "our  principles!"* 

It  is  beyond  all  question,  then,  that  open  communion 
annuls  the  law  of  Christ,  destroys  the  Baptists,  and  benefits 
the  Pedo-baptists.  Just  in  proportion,  then,  as  we  believe 
"our  principles"  worth  preserving,  we  must  resist  the  temp- 
tation of  falling  into  this  spiritual  maelstrom.  "Our  prin- 
6         *  See  Howell,  p.  200.  et.  f>q. 


66  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

ciples"  are,  that  the  church  ought  to  be  wholly  separate 
from  the  world;  that  only  those  who  are  the  children  of  God 
by  faith  are  entitled  to  membership  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
on  earth;  that  such  enter  visibly  into  that  church  by  immer- 
sion into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit;  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  rnle  of  faith  and 
practice  in  religious  matters;  that  the  positive  institutions 
of  the  gospel  can  not  be  neglected  without  great  guilt,  and 
that  unless  observed  as  commanded  they  are  not  observed 
at  all.  These  principles  alone  can  free  the  church  from 
unholy  contact  with  the  world,  emancipate  man  from  the 
bondage  imposed  by  the  union  of  church  and  state,  over- 
throw the  Popedom  and  its  consequents,  and  give  the  Scrip- 
tures, faithfully  translated  in  every  word  and  sentence,  to  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth.  Such  is  the  mission  of  the  Bap- 
tists. Destroy  them,  and  we  stab  unto  death  these  works  of 
light,  love,  and  liberty  in  which  we  are  engaged.  And  this 
cry  of  open  communion  is  the  trumpet  signal  of  our  enemies 
and  of  the  foes  to  our  principles,  to  gather  them  to  the  car- 
nival over  our  destruction.  Not  love  for  our  fellowship,  but 
hatred  of  our  principles,  and  fears  of  our  success,  elicits 
these  pretences  of  affection. 

Mr.  Hall  charges  that  close  communion  is  calculated  to 
beget  feelings  of  bigotry  and  to  cultivate  sentiments  of 
severity  towards  other  denominations.  Speaking  of  its 
advocates,  he  says: 

"Conceiving  themselves  to  be  a  highly  privileged  class,  as 
the  only  legitimate  members  of  his  church,  they  are  almost 
invariably  exposed  to  think  more  highly  of  themselves  than 
they  ought  to  think;  and  founding  their  separation,  not  on 
that  which  distinguishes  the  followers  of  Christ  from  the 
world,  but  on  a  point,  in  which  Christian*  dissent  from  eiub. 


I'NSCRIPTURAL    AND   DELETERIOUS.  67 

other,  they  are  naturally  tempted  to  attach  superlative 
importance  to  the  grounds  of  difference. "# 

The  members  of  no  denomination  maintain  kindlier  rela- 
tions towards  others  differing  from  them,  than  do  the  Bap- 
tists. This  is  notorious  to  all  the  world.  They  are  the 
only  denomination  claiming  an  existence  of  three  centuries, 
that  have  not  pursued  dissent  unto  persecution  and  blood. 
They,  solitary  and  alone,  advocated,  against  the  whole  reli- 
gious world,  the  doctrine  that  the  conscience  should  be  left 
free  and  untrammelled  in  religion.  Their  garments  are 
unpolluted  by  martyr  blood.  The  accusing  angel  has  no 
record  against  them  for  wishing  even  that  their  opponents 
should  not  be  allowed  to  serve  God  as  they  pleased.  And 
better  feelings  exist  between  them  and  other  denominations, 
than  between  others  and  themselves.  The  pious  members 
of  all  other  persuasions,  upon  leaving  their  own,  are  more 
apt  to  join  ours  than  any  other  communion.  In  the  general, 
the  Baptist  are  the  second  choice  of  all  other  denominations. 

Mr.  Hall  himself  has  given  us  the  best  refutation  of  his 
own  charges.  He  admits,  and  he  makes  it  the  subject  of  his 
ridicule,  that  the  Baptists  acknowledge  that  many  of  the 
Pedo-baptists  stand  high  in  the  favor  of  God ;  that  they 
are  truly  and  really  converted;  that  they  are  the  children 
of  God;  that  Baptists  invite  them  to  pray  and  preach,  and 
unite  with  them  in  songs  of  praise  and  other  exercises  of 
devotion.  For  this  he  tries  to  fix  upon  us  the  charge  of 
inconsistency,  and  says: 

"Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  communion  of 
saints  is  by  no  means  confined  to  a  particular  occasion,  or 
limited  to  one  transaction,  such  as  that  of  assembling  around 
the   Lord's  table;    it  extends   to  all  the   modes  by  which 

*  P.  229. 


68  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

believers  recognize  each  other  as  the  members  of  a  common 
head.  Every  expression  of  fraternal  regard,  every  partici- 
pation in  the  enjoyments  of  social  worship,  every  instance 
of  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  exerted  in  prayer  and  supplication 
or  in  acts  of  Christian  sympathy  and  friendship,  as  truly 
belongs  to  the  communion  of  saints  as  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist.  In  truth,  if  we  are  strangers  to  our  fellow- 
Christians  on  other  occasions,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  enjoy 
it  there;  for  the  mind  is  not  a  piece  of  mechanism  which 
can  be  set  a-going  at  pleasure,  whose  movements  are  obedi- 
ent to  the  call  of  time  and  place.  Nothing  short  of  habitual 
sympathy  of  spirit,  springing  from  the  cultivation  of  bene- 
volent feelings  and  the  interchange  of  kind  offices,  will 
secure  that  reciprocal  delight,  that  social  pleasure,  which  is 
the  soul  of  Christian  communion.  Its  richest  fruits  are 
frequently  reserved  for  private  conference,  like  that  in 
which  the  two  disciples  were  engaged  in  their  way  to 
Emniaus,  when  their  hearts  burned  within  them,  while  the 
Lord  opened  to  them  the  Scriptures;  when  they  take  sweet 
counsel  together  as  they  go  to  the  house  of  God  in  com- 
pany; when  they  bear  each  other's  burthens,  weep  with  those 
that  weep,  and  rejoice  with  those  that  rejoice;  say,  have 
Christians  no  mutual  fellowship?  Is  it  not  surprizing  that, 
losing  sight  of  such  obvious  facts,  our  opponents  always 
reason  on  the  subject  of  communion  as  though  it  related 
merely  to  the  sacrament?  In  every  other  particular,  they 
act  just  as  we  do."* 

Mr.  Hall  is  unjust  to  his  opponents.  They  do  not  regard 
the  Lord's  Supper  as  designed  to  represent  Christian  com- 
munion at  all.  Leaving  out  the  Eucharist,  the  above  extract 
presents   our  views   precisely  of  communion.      Our   chief 

*  Pp.  224,  226. 


UNSCRIPTURAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  69 

objection  to  his  theory  is,  that  individuals  by  it  draw  near 
each  other  with  their  mouths,  and  honor  each  other  with 
their  lips,  while  their  hearts  are  far  from  each  other.  Surely 
devils  laugh  at  a  manifestation,  around  the  sacramental 
board,  of  fellowship  between  Armenians  and  Calvinists, 
Episcopalians  and  Calvinists,  who,  perhaps,  at  intervals  few 
and  far  between,  make  this  manifestation  of  communion, 
when,  at  all  other  times,  the  ears  of  all  mankind  are  stunned 
with  the  clamor  of  their  discord;  and  whenever  they  have 
been  permitted,  have  settled  their  disputes  on  the  tented 
field.  But  enough;  the  sacrament  apart,  Mr.  Hall  concedes 
that  in  all  other  matters  of  Christian  fellowship,  the  Close 
Communion  Baptists  act  just  as  do  himself  and  his  adher- 
ents. This  admission  is  a  triumphant  refutation  of  his  own 
charge,  that  close  communion  fosters  a  spirit  of  separation  in 
feeling  and  fellowship  from  Christians  of  other  persuasions. 
He  is  answered  and  refuted  out  of  his  own  mouth. 

Mr.  Hall  winds  up  his  objections  to  close  communion 
with  the  following  proposition : 

"  In  addition  to  all  other  reasons  for  retracing  our  steps, 
we  may  with  great  propriety  allege  the  spirit  of  the  times, 
the  genius  of  the  age,  distinguished  as  it  is,  beyond  all 
former  example,  by  the  union  of  Christians  in  the  promotion 
of  a  common  cause,  and  their  merging  their  minor  differ- 
ences in  the  cultivation  of  great  principles  and  the  pursuit  of 
great  objects.  Instead  of  confining  themselves,  each  to  the 
defence  of  his  own  citadel,  they  are  sallying  forth  in  all 
directions,  in  order  to  make  a  powerful  and  combined  attack 
on  the  kingdom  of  darkness."* 

But  Mr.  Hall  seems  to  forget,  that  the  distinguishing  feature 
in  the  genius  of  the  age,  has  been  produced  by  the  approxima- 

*Pp.  229,  230. 


70  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BK 

tion  of  evangelical  denominations  to  Baptist  principles,  which 
his  theory  would  destroy.  Pedo -baptism,  with  many  of  its 
advocates,  is  not  now  what  it  was  formerly.  Many  denom- 
inations regard  only  true  and  real  Christians  as  members  of 
Christ's  kingdom  on  earth,  looking  upon  baptized  infants  as 
but  quasi  members  at  best;  and  some  of  them  esteem  such 
no  members  at  all.  When  grown  up,  unless  born  again, 
unless  they  give  credible  evidence  of  having  passed  from 
death  unto  life,  they  are  regarded  children  of  wrath  even  as 
others,  as  still  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  the  bonds  of 
iniquity — as  baptized  infidels.  This  was  not  once  the  case. 
The  time  was  when  evidence  of  faith  and  conversion  were 
not  required  as  conditions  of  membership.  The  church 
standards  of  the  Pedo-baptists  do  not  now  require  it;  and 
yet  the  requisition  is  made  in  spite  of  the  standards. 

The  genius  of  the  age  tends  to  the  merging  of  all  Chris- 
tian denominations  into  two — into  the  church  party  and  the 
evangelical  party — into  Papists  and  Baptists.  This  spirit 
is  at  work  in  all  the  denominations.  Among  Episcopalians, 
it  is  High  Church  and  Low  Church ;  the  former  urging  their 
sentiments  onward  towards  Rome,  and  the  latter  towards 
the  Baptists.  Neither  can  consistently  stop  short  of  one  or 
the  other  of  these  points.  So  they  charge  one  another,  and 
so  all  the  candid  must  perceive.  Among  the  various  branches 
of  Presbyterianism,  some  advocate  the  admission,  as  mem- 
bers in  full  fellowship,  of  all  who  were  baptized  in  infancy  and 
who  having  arrived  at  man's  estate,  are  guilty  of  no  immoral 
conduct;  while  others  insist  they  must  be  born  again  or 
they  have  no  claim  to  be  received  into  the  church.  The 
Methodist  'denomination  is  a  smothered  volcano.  The 
oppressed  and  down-trodden  laity  are  discontented  with 
being;  barred  from  all  the  privileges  of  *>burch  membership. 


INSCR1PTURAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  71 

They  are  not  easy  under  the  yoke  of  vassalage  to  ministerial 
oligarchs.  The  fire  is  smothered  but  not  extinguished.  Its 
rumblings  forbode  a  fearful  eruption.  Even  among  the 
Papists  there  is  discontent.  Parties  are  forming  in  spite  of 
the  ghostly  anathemas  of  the  church.  Many  are  rising  up 
against  the  monstrous  assumption  of  the  Popedom.  While 
others,  even  in  this  country,  going  to  the  other  extreme,  are 
fulsome  in  their  eulogies  of  the  grossest  abominations  of 
mystical  Babylon.  They  even  denounce  religious  liberty  as 
heresy;  urge  the  superiority  of  a  monarchy  over  a  republic; 
maintain  the  divine  right  of  popes  to  dispose  of  crowns, 
kingdoms,  and  empires  at  their  sovereign  pleasure ;  insist 
that  the  dark  ages  were  the  noonday  glory  of  the  world; 
and  affirm  that  the  people  ought  not  to  read  the  Bible;  and 
that  popular  education  is  a  curse  and  a  monster  of  evil. 
These  facts  are  significant.  And  the  result  is  already  seen  in 
its  effects  upon  infant  baptism.  The  church  party,  with  more 
than  wonted  earnestness,  are  clamorous  for  infant  baptism, 
reviving  and  urging  all  the  ancient  superstition  in  favor  of  its 
importance  and  in  proof  of  its  saving  efficacy.  While  the 
evangelical  party  are  becoming  daily  more  indifferent  to  its 
administration  and  careless  of  its  prevalence.  Among  these 
it  is  rapidly  falling  into  disuse.  They  do  not  see  why  an  in- 
fant should  be  solemnly  besprinkled  in  the  name  of  the  Trin- 
ity, when  the  whole  tenor  of  revelation,  every  dictate  of  reason 
and  common  sense,  as  well  as  the  decisive  and  emphatic  testi- 
mony of  all  history  and  experience,  are  conclusive  in  demon- 
strating that  it  is  of  no  benefit  whatever  either  to  the  soul  or 
body,  to  the  temporal  or  eternal  interests  of  the  infant.  A 
High  Churchman  in  New  York,  not  long  since,  boasted,  tbat 
in  his  own  congregation  in  one  year,  he  had  baptized  more 
infants  than  had  been  baptized  during  the  same  time  in  tho 


72  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BK 

bounds  of  several  large  Presbyterian  synods  which  he  speci- 
fied; and  he  proved  his  assertion  from  the  records.  The 
reason  he  assigned  was  palpable  enough.  He  believed  in 
baptismal  regeneration.  He  regarded  it  literally  a  sign  and 
a  seal  of  the  remission  of  sins.  He  taught  that  when  an 
infant  was  baptized,  it  became  a  member  of  the  church — a 
child  of  God  and  an  heir  of  glory.  He  urged  it  as  a  vitally 
important  ordinance.  And  hence  his  people  observed  it, 
because  they  supposed  it  would  confer  a  substantial  benefit 
upon  their  children.  But  he  charged  that  the  Presbyterians 
of  the  synods  named  had  deflected  from  the  letter  of  their 
standards  and  the  doctrines  of  their  founders.  They  held 
that  baptism  conferred  no  change  upon  the  infant's  moral 
or  spiritual  condition — that  it  was  a  mere  external  rite;  and 
hence,  said  this  churchman,  no  marvel  the  ceremony  has 
fallen  into  disuse,  when  its  ministers  have  brought  it  into 
contempt.  Unless  they  give  it  vitality — unless  they  make 
it  of  some  spiritual  efficacy  to  the  soul — unless  they  insist 
upon  its  regenerating  power,  their  people  will  entirely  cease 
to  bring  their  children  to  baptism.  The  churchman  was 
right.  Many  Presbyterian  ministers  have  weepingly  deplored 
the  decline  of  the  custom.  They  have,  by  the  pulpit  and 
the  press,  tried  to  revive  it.  Church  courts  have  passed 
resolutions  to  enforce  it;  but  all  in  vain.  It  is  a  doomed 
institution.  The  evangelical  current  is  sweeping  it  into  the 
oceans  of  the  things  that  were.  It  is  rapidly  passing  away. 
It  must  fall,  ere  Popery  can  fall.  It  is  the  chief  support  of 
all  that  most  hinders  the  progress  of  the  gospel.  By  it  is  made 
the  mixture  of  iron  and  clay — of  church  and  state — in  tho 
vision  of  the  prophet.  The  mysterious  stone  is  smiting  it 
to  dust.  The  Lord  will  consume  it  by  the  brightness  of  his 
coming.     "Evan  so,  corns  quickly.     Amen." 


UNSCRIPTURAL   AND   DELETERIOUS.  73 

And  it  was  the  Close  Communion  Baptists  who  first  moved 
in  those  enterprises  which  shed  such  peculiar  lustre  upon 
the  churches  of  modern  times.  They  founded  modern 
missions.  They  have  done  more  than  all  other  Christians 
united  for  the  translations  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  lan- 
guages of  the  nations. 

These  facts  militate  fatally  against  the  system  of  Mr. 
Hall.  They  show  that  the  best  interests  of  truth  —  the 
ultimate  overthrow  of  mystical  Babylon  —  the  universal  pre- 
valence of  the  gospel — the  rescue  and  redemption  of  man 
from  the  intolerable  thraldom  of  a  pseudo-Christianity,  are 
identified  with  the  maintenance  and  the  triumph  of  Baptist 
principles.  His  system  would  destroy  those  principles. 
Close  communion,  so  called,  fosters  and  sustains  them.  If, 
then,  a  Baptist  sincerely  loves  his  principles  and  believes 
they  were  ordained  of  God,  he  can  not  be  seduced  into  a 
desertion  of  them  by  the  syren  song  of  open  communion. 
He  will  not,  to  please  man,  offend  God  by  disobedience;  but, 
trusting  in  the  support  of  the  founder  of  the  church,  he  will 
persevere  in  walking  in  all  his  statutes  and  ordinances 
blameless,  being  assured  that  however  human  policy  may 
seem  to  conflict,  the  truth  will  prevail. 

With  the  Pedo-baptists  we  really  have  no  controversy 
respecting  communion.  They  agree  with  us  that  baptism  is 
a  prc-requisite  to  all  church  privileges  —  that  it  is  the  visible 
door  into  the  visible  church.  They  hold,  too,  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  a  church  ordinance,  and,  consequently, 
that  it  must  be  preceded  by  baptism.  We  are  not  unapprized 
of  the  fact,  that  a  few  of  the  less  esteemed  Methodist  minis- 
ters, who  have  more  zeal  than  knowledge,  have,  of  late 
years,  assumed  that  the  unbaptized,  and  even  the  uncon- 
verted, may,  and  in  certain  cases  ought,  to  partake  of  the 

7 


74  OPEN    COMMUNION   SHOWN    TO   Bfc 

Eucharist.  But  it  would  be  unjust  to  notice  them,  since 
neither  their  church  nor  the  intelligent  among  their  breth- 
ren lend  any  countenance  to  their  proceedings.  Their 
course  is  an  innovation.  The  discipline  which  they  vowed 
in  ordination  to  maintain,  prescribes  Baptism  before  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord.  It  is  placed  first  in  their  Articles  of 
Religion.  It  is  there  declared  to  be  "a  sign  of  profession, 
and  a  mark  of  difference,  whereby  Christians  are  distin- 
guished from  others  that  are  not  baptized."  We  can  enter 
into  no  discussion  with  such  persons.  All  that  we  have  said 
and  quoted  in  proof  that  Baptism  must  precede  the  Supper, 
applies  to  their  case,  with  simply  this  difference,  they  not 
only  disregard  the  plain  injunctions  of  the  Scriptures,  but 
neglect  to  hear  their  own  brethren,  and  depart  from  the 
regulations  of  their  own  church.  To  that  church  we  leave 
the  judgment  of  their  conduct. 

The  quarrel  which  the  Pedo-baptists  have  with  us,  does 
not  respect  our  close  communion,  but  our  close  baptism. 
The  evangelical  portion  of  them  require  faith  and  baptism 
as  pre-requisites  to  the  Lord's  table.  We  hold  that  only 
believers  are  scriptural  subjects  of  baptism,  and  that  immer- 
sion is  the  only  scriptural  mode.  In  their  creed  they  go 
farther,  and  maintain  that  the  infants  of  believing  parents, 
and  the  infants  whose  parents  are  not  believers,  may,  and 
ought  to  be  baptized;  and  that  baptism  is  rightly  adminis- 
tered by  pouring  or  by  sprinkling. 

Believing  as  we  do,  that  the  churches  planted  by  the 
apostles  were  composed  of  penitent  believers  who  had  been 
immersed  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  can  not,  by  inviting  them  to  the  Lord's 
table,  recognize  Pedo-baptist  societies  a*  gospel  churches. 
'Tor  can  we  invite  to  the   Lord's  table  any  other  body  rf 


UNSCRIPTURAL    AND    DELETERIOUS.  75 

professed  Christians,  though  they  may  have  been  impressed, 
unless  they  hold  to  all  the  essential  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity—  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  depravity  of  human 
nature,  justification  by  faith  alone  without  the  works  of  the 
law,  the  final  perseverance  of  the  saints,  the  endless  punish- 
ment of  the  finally  impenitent,  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
holy  Scriptures.  Nor  can  we,  by  communing  with  them, 
recognize  as  gospel  churches  those  religious  associations  that 
have  departed  from  the  pattern  of  church  organization  given 
us  by  the  apostles  in  the  constitution  of  the  first  Christian 
churches.  Were  a  Baptist  church  to  surrender  its  inde- 
pendency and  acknowledge  the  right  of  any  other  church  or 
any  ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  to  legislate  for  it,  or  to  sit  in 
judgment  upon  its  acts,  we  should  regard  it  as  having  so  far 
departed  from  the  law  of  Christ,  as  to  require  us  to  withdraw 
from  its  communion.  Nor  could  we  invite  to  our  communion 
individual  Christians,  however  pious  they  might  be,  who 
would  retain  their  membership  in  such  a  church.  In  short, 
we  can  not  invite  into  our  churches,  to  unite  with  us  in 
celebrating  a  church  rite,  any  whom  we  could  not  receive  to 
full  membership  in  the  church.  Nor  can  any  society  claim- 
ing to  be  a  gospel  church,  consistently  do  this.  Yet  Pres- 
byterians and  Methodists,  who  would  not  receive  into  their 
churches  applicants  for  admission  who  should  avow  and 
refuse  to  surrender  Baptist  views  of  church  polity,  complain 
most  piteously,  that  we  do  not  come  into  their  churches  and 
enjoy  the  privilege  of  joining  with  them  in  celebrating  a 
rite  of  their  churches!  And  Reformers,  too,  who  do  not 
regard  Presbyterians  or  Methodists,  if  unimmersed,  as  quali- 
fied for  membership  in  their  churches,  are  offended  because 
Presbyterians  and  Methodists  will  not  commune  with  theml 
The  Episcopalians  and  the  Catholics  are  more  consistent. 


76  OPEN   COMMUNION   SHOWN   TO   BE 

The  inquiry  respecting  the  propriety  of  holding  sacra- 
mental communion  with  our  neighbors  of  "the  currrent 
reformation,"  is  one  of  more  difficulty,  in  the  estimation  of 
some,  than  that  Vespecting  the  Pedo-baptists.  But  to  our 
mind  the  path  of  duty  is  very  plain  and  obvious.  The 
Reformers  do  not  regard  the  Baptists  as  members  of  the 
church  of  Christ.  They  proclaim  us  to  be  schismatics  or 
sectarians.  They  affirm  that  we  have  built  upon  another 
foundation  than  the  Sacred  Scriptures — that  we  are  one  of 
the  daughters  of  mystical  Babylon.  Hence  their  chief  work 
has  been  to  reform  us  and  to  construct  us  into  a  veritable 
church.  They  call  upon  us  to  forsake  our  evil  ways  and  to 
follow  them  in  the  paths  which  they  honor  with  their  foot- 
prints. And  whenever  they  can  get  a  Baptist  to  join  them, 
they  rejoice  more  over  him  than  over  ninety  and  nine  wicked 
persons  who  need  repentance.  If  they  regard  ours  as 
churches  of  God,  then  they  are  guilty  of  egregious  wrong  in 
producing  schism  in  the  body  of  Christ,  which  they  every- 
where attempt,  and  which  in  many  cases  they  have  but  too 
successfully  accomplished;  and  if  they  do  not  regard  ours 
as  churches  of  God,  then  they  can  not,  according  to  that 
Bible  which  they  profess  so  dearly  to  reverence,  wish  sacra- 
mental communion  with  us.  According  to  the  first  suppo- 
sition, they  are  too  sinful  for  our  fellowship;  and  according 
to  the  last,  we  are  too  sinful  for  theirs.  Either  way,  and 
intercommunion  is  wholly  out  of  the  question — is  but  the 
communion  of  light  and  darkness. 

In  many  of  the  reformed  "congregations,"  too,  are  per- 
sons who  have  been  excluded  from  the  Baptist  churches  for 
sundry  misdemeanors  and  immoralties,  and  yet  have  been 
taken  into  the  brotherhood  of  the  reformation  without  any 
regard  to  our  feelings  or  discipline  in  the  premises.     This, 


UNSCRIPTURAL  AND   DELETERIOUS.  77 

our  readers  will  bear  witness,  is  no  mere  fancy  supposition 
to  serve  a  purpose.  Such  examples,  unfortunately,  exist  too 
abundantly.  Do  not  Baptists,  then,  in  fellowshipping  such 
at  the  Lord's  table  and  as  true  church  members,  proclaim, 
to  all  intents  and  purposes,  their  own  want  of  ecclesiastical 
existence — that  to  them  belong  none  of  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  a  Christian  church?  Is  it  not  an  admission 
that  they  have  no  scriptural  right  to  receive  and  exclude 
members?  Is  it  not,  in  short,  an  acknowledgment,  as  pal- 
pable as  it  is  humiliating,  that  everything  which  the  reformed 
"proclaimers"  have  preached  and  published  respecting  our 
sectarianism  and  our  kindredship  to  the  papal  harlot,  is  just 
and  true?  As  matters  now  stand  between  ourselves  and  the 
Reformers,  it  would  be  far  better  for  us  to  become  members 
with  them  than  to  commune  with  them.  That  would  be 
more  consistent  and  manly.  It  is  better  and  more  honor- 
able to  surrender  our  cause  than  to  betray  it.  Let  us  be 
open  enemies  rather  than  traitors. 

For  many  of  the  Reformers,  individually,  we  cherish  the 
kindest  Christian  feelings ;  but  when  we  are  called  upon  to 
recognize  them  as  a  body,  the  case  is  materially  altered.  To 
say  nothing  further  respecting  their  course  as  a  denomina- 
tion towards  us,  in  declaring  that  we  are  not  churches  of 
Christ,  and  openly  waging  a  war  of  extermination  upon  us, 
we  are  told  by  their  founder,  "that  all  sorts  of  doctrine,  by 
almost  all  sorts  of  men,  are  proclaimed  under  the  broad 
banners  and  with  the  supposed  sanction  of  the  begun  refor- 
mation." This  is  high  authority,  and  comes  from  one  who 
had  every  opportunity  to  ascertain  the  truth  in  the  case, 
combined  with  every  inducement  to  speak  only  what  he  did 
know,  and  to  testify  only  what  he  had  seen.  Indeed,  the 
author  of  the  remark  just  quoted,  seems  to  have  very  little 


78  OPEN    COMMUNION    SHOWN    TO    BE 

relish  for  this  strange  mixture  himself,  and  has  more  than 
once  given  vent  to  expressions  of  unmixed  loathing  and  dis- 
gust respecting  it.  He  regards  its  existence  as  a  stench  in 
the  nostrils  of  all  intelligent  and  respectable  Christians. 
We  should  wait,  therefore,  until  our  reformation  fishermen, 
who  have  been  dragging  their  net  through  the  murky  waters 
of  mystical  Babylon,  and  have  confessedly  gathered  every 
kind,  shall  sever  the  good  from  among  the  bad,  before  we, 
in  indecent  haste,  seek  sacramental  union  with  them.  We 
have  enough  unworthy  members  of  our  own,  without  running 
in  hot  haste  to  embrace  those  of  other  denominations.  And 
if  we  must  fellowship  the  "all  sorts  of  doctrine"  proclaimed 
under  the  banners  of  reformation,  can  we  discard  those  of 
Universalism,  Unitarianism,  or  any  other  of  the  myriad 
isms  which  are  the  dark  spots  in  the  sky  of  modern  Chris- 
tendom? 

In  conclusion,  it  is  our  hope  to  convince  all  Free  Com- 
munion Baptists,  if  this  article  should  fall  into  the  hands  of 
any  such,  of  the  inconsistency  of  their  course,  and  of  the 
mistakes  into  which  they  have  fallen.  The  following  pro- 
positions, we  think,  have  been  demonstrated: 

I.  That  the  principles  op  Free  Communion  Baptists 

ARE  CONDEMNED  BY  ALL  THOSE  WITH  WHOM  THEY  PROPOSE 
TO  COMMUNE — THEY  STAND  ON  A  PLATFORM  CONDEMNED 
BY  THE  ENTIRE  WORLD. 

II.  That  Free  Communion  Baptists  are  dupes  and 

VICTIMS,  BLINDLY  LED  INTO  THE  BETRAYAL  AND  SURRENDER 
OP  GREAT  FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  TRUTH. 

III.  That  Free  Communion  Baptists  virtually  sub- 
vert THEIR  OWN  ECCLESIASTICAL  EXISTENCE. 

IV.  Free  Communion  Baptists  degrade  the  Supper 
of  the  Lord,  by  allowing  those  to  partake  of  it 


UNSCBIPTURAL    AND   DELETERIOUS.  79 

WHOM    THEY    DEEM    UNWORTHY    OF    THEIR    ASSOCIATION    IN 
THE  CHURCH. 

V.  Free  Communion  Baptists  pervert  the  design  op 
the  Lord's  Supper — making  it  a  test  op  Christian 
fellowship,  instead  of  a  memorial  of  hls  death. 

VI.  Free  Communion  Baptists  encourage  those  they 

BELIEVE  TO  BE  IN  ERROR  TO  PERSIST  IN  THAT  ERROR. 

VII.  Free  Communion  Baptists  are  insisting  upon  a 
practice  wnoLLY  uncalled  for.  The  Baptists  have 
enough  to  do  to  attend  to  their  own  communion.  Few  of 
them  ever  commune  with  all  their  brethren  of  the  same 
faith  and  order  in  their  own  vicinage;  and,  as  a  general 
thing,  the  members  of  other  denominations,  most  clamorous 
for  free  communion,  very  seldom  practice  what  they  insist 
upon, 


A.FFE  :n~  D  I  X 

BY   THE   EDITOR. 


Alexander  Campbell's  declaration  against  open  com- 
munion, and  his  reasons  for  restricting  the  partaking  of  the 
"loaf  and  the  cup"  to  immersed  believers,  as  set  forth  in 
his  "Christian  System,"  published  in  1839. 

DECLARATION. 

"As  for  myself  and  my  brethren,  I  never  believed,  taught, 
or  practiced  what  is  called  '  open  communion.' " — Millenial 
Harbinger,  Nov.,  1858. 

REASONS. 

"Christians  are  persons  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified, 
adopted,  saved." — Christian  System,  p.  64. 

"As  the  disciples  of  Christ  are  declared  to  be  in  a  par- 
doned, justified,  sanctified,  reconciled,  adopted,  and.  saved 
state,  they  are  the  only  persons  in  such  a  state;  and  all 
others  are  in  an  unpardoned,  unjustified,  unsanctified,  unre- 
conciled, unadopted,  and  lost  state.  When,  then,  is  a  change 
of  state  effected,  and  by  what  means? 

"We  are  constrained  to  admit  that  a  change  in  any  one  of 
tbese  states  necessarily  implies,  because  it  involves,  a  change 
in  all  the  others.  Every  one  who  is  pardoned  is  justified, 
sanctified,  reconciled,  adopted,  and  saved,  and  so  every  one 


82  APPENDIX. 

that  is  saved,  is  adopted,  reconciled,  sanctified,  justified,  and 
pardoned." — Christian  System,  p.  196. 

"That  it  is  not  faith,  but  an  act  resulting  from  faith, 
which   changes   our  state,  we   shall  now  attempt  to   prove. 

*  *  *  *  That  faith  by  itself  neither  justifies,  sanctifies, 
nor  purifies,  is  admitted  by  those  who  oppose  immersion  for 
the  forgiveness  of  sins.  *  *  *  *  If  they  admit  that 
faith,  apart  from  the  blood  of  Christ,  can  not  obtain  pardon, 
they  admit  all  that  is  necessary  to  prove  them  inconsistent 
with  themselves  in  opposing  immersion  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  or  immersion  as  that  act  by  which  our  state  is  changed. 

*  *  *  *  The  Apostle  Peter,  when  first  publishing  the 
gospel  to  the  Jews,  taught  them  that  they  were  not  forgiven 
their  sins  by  faith,  but  by  an  act  of  faith  —  by  a  believing 
immersion  into  the  Lord  Jesus.  *  *  *  *  They  inquired 
of  Peter  and  the  other  apostles,  what  they  ought  to  do  to 
obtain  remission.  They  were  informed,  that  though  they 
now  believed  and  repented,  they  were  not  pardoned;  but 
must   '  reform  and  be    immersed  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

*  *  #  *  This  act  of  faith  was  presented  as  that  act  by 
which  a  change  in  their  state  could  be  effected;  or,  in  other 
words,  by  which  alone  they  could  be  pardoned." — Christian 
System,  pp.  202,  203. 

"It  [immersion]  necessarily  becomes  the  line  of  discrim- 
ination between  the  two  states  before  described.  On  this 
side,  and  on  that,  mankind  are  in  quite  different  states.  On 
the  one  side,  they  are  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified,  recon- 
ciled, adopted,  and  saved;  on  the  other,  they  are  in  a  state 
of  condemnation." — Christian  System,  p.  201. 

"All  Christians  are  members  of  the  house  or  family  of 
God,  are  called  and  constituted  a  holy  and  royal  priesthood, 
and  may,  therefore,  bless  God  for  the  Lord's  table,  its  loaf, 


APPENDIX.  83 

and  cup — approach  it  without  fear  and  partake  of  it  with 
joy,  as  often  as  they  please  in  remembrance  of  the  death  of 
their  Lord  and  Savior." — Christian  System,  p.  318. 

Mr.  Campbell's  argument  abridged  is  this:  The  Lord's 
Supper  is  for  Christians  only ;  Christians  are  those  who  have 
been  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified,  adopted,  saved ;  the 
apostles  taught  the  Jews  at  Pentecost,  that  it  was  not  by 
faith,  but  by  an  act  of  faith — by  a  believing  immersion,  that 
they  could  be  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified,  adopted,  and 
saved;  that,  before  immersion,  even  a  penitent  believer  is  in 
a  state  of  condemnation — unpardoned,  unjustified,  unrecon- 
ciled, unadopted,  and  lost,  and,  consequently,  not  Chris- 
tians; and  that,  therefore,  unimmersed  persons,  not  being 
members  of  the  house  or  family  of  God,  may  not  approach 
the  table  "without  fear  and  partake  of  it  with  joy." 

How  any  one  holding  Mr.  Campbell's  views,  as  above 
written,  can  welcome  to  the  Lord's  table  immersed  persons, 
or  how,  if  he  be  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  he  can  conscien- 
tiously refrain  from  warning  the  unimmersed  of  their  unfit- 
ness to  partake  of  the  "loaf  and  cup,"  it  is  not  our  province 
to  explain.  Baptists  agree  with  Mr.  Campbell  in  maintaining 
that  none  but  immersed  believers  in  Jesus  Christ  have  a 
right  to  come  to  his  table,  because  only  such  are  fit  for  mem- 
bership in  his  visible  churches,  and  because  the  Supper  was 
ordained  by  him  to  be  a  church  ordinance ;  but  they  believe 
his  theory  of  the  plan  of  salvation  to  be  unscriptural  and 
pernicious.  Thus  believing,  they  can  not,  by  inviting  Re- 
formers to  their  communion,  recognize  their  congregation  as 
gospel  churches. 

In  the  "Millenial  Harbinger,"  of  November,  1858,  Mr. 
Campbell  denies  that  he  has  ever  believed  in  baptismal 
remission.      To  the   declaration    already  quoted,  he   adds: 


84  APPENDIX. 

"Nor  have  I  ever  taught  baptismal  remission."  For  an 
exposition  of  his  views  he  refers  his  readers  to  his  "Christian 
System,"  from  which  work  we  have  extracted  his  argument 
in  support  of  restricted  communion.  The  passages  already 
quoted  seem  to  us  to  teach  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  remis- 
sion; but  as  Mr.  C.  affirms  that  he  has  never  taught  this 
doctrine,  we  shall  be  excused  for  making  a  few  more  extracts 
from  his  book. 

"The  propositions  now  proved  and  illustrated,  must  con- 
vince all,  that  there  is  some  connection  between  immersion 
and  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  *  *  *  *  Nothing  remains, 
but  that  it  he  considered,  what  it  is  in  truth — the  accom- 
panying sign  of  an  accompanying  remission;  the  sign  and 
seal,  or  the  means  and  the  seal,  of  remission  then  granted 
through  the  water,  connected  with  the  blood  of  Christ  by 
divine  appointment,  and  through  our  faith  in  it." — Christian 
System,  p.  240. 

"Down  into  the  water  you  were  led.  Then  the  name  of 
the  Holy  One  upon  your  faith  and  upon  your  person,  was 
pronounced.  You  were  then  buried  in  the  water  under  that 
name.  It  closed  itself  upon  you.  In  its  womb  you  were 
concealed.  Into  the  Lord,  as  into  the  water,  you  were 
immersed.  But  in  the  water  you  continued  not.  Of  it  you 
were  born,  and  from  it  you  came  forth,  raised  with  Jesus, 
and  rising  in  his  strength.  There  your  consciences  were 
released;  for  there  your  old  sins  were  washed  away." — Page 
247. 

"  He  [Cornelius]  was  immersed,  and  unto  the  kingdom  of 
God  he  came.  He  was  then  saved.  You  need  not  ask,  how 
or  why  these  things  are  bo.  Do  as  Cornelius  did,  and  then 
you  will  think  of  it  in  another  light." — Page  249. 

"As  well,  as  reasonably  might  you  pray  for  loaves  from 


APPENDIX.  85 

heaven,  or  manna,  because  Israel  ate  it  in  the  desert,  as  to 
pray  for  pardon,  while  you  refuse  the  remission  of  sins  by 
immersion." — Page  251. 

"The  Master  knew  that  to  wait  for  health  before  we  went 
to  the  physician  —  to  seek  for  warmth  before  we  approached 
the  fire  —  to  wait  till  we  ceased  to  be  hungry  before  we 
approached  the  table — was  not  reasonable.  And,  therefore, 
he  never  asked,  as  he  never  expected,  any  one  to  feel  like  a 
Christian  before  he  was  immersed,  and  began  to  live  like  a 
Christian.  *  *  *  *  Arise,  then,  and  be  immersed,  and 
wash  away  your  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord." — 
Page  254. 

"Christian  experience  can  never  be  enjoyed  by  any  human 
being  previous  to  his  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism." — 
Millenial  Harbinger,  Nov.,  1858. 


PEDO-BAPTIST    CONCESSIONS. 

Although  it  is  certain,  as  has  been  shown  by  Dr.  Waller 
in  the  foregoing  discussion  of  the  terms  of  church  com- 
munion, that  all  Pedo-baptist  denominations  have  required 
baptism  as  a  prc-requisite  to  admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
very  few  of  their  writers  have  been  candid  enough  to  affirm, 
what  they  know  to  be  true,  that  Baptists  are  consistent  in 
limiting  their  invitations  to  the  communion  table,  to  im- 
mersed believers.  Of  such  unkind  treatment  Baptists  have 
had  much  reason  to  complain.  They  have  been  represented 
as  "ignorant,"  "illiberal,"  and  "bigoted,"  by  Pedo-baptist 
authors,  and  by  editors  of  Pedo-baptist  periodicals,  who  had 
not  honesty  enough  to  admit  what  they  will  all  acknowledge 
when  pressed  to  the  point  —  that  the  only  question  to  be 


86  APPENDIX. 

discussed  by  them  and  us,  in  order  to  settle  the  terms  of 
communion  is,  What  is  Christian  baptism? 

It  is  gratifying  to  witness,  occasionally,  a  disposition  to 
do  us  justice  in  this  respect.  The  late  Dr.  Griffin,  formerly 
President  of  Williams  College,  Mass.,  and  one  of  the  most 
talented  and  erudite  of  the  Congregational  clergy  of  New- 
England,  in  his  celebrated  letter  on  communion,  says: 

"I  agree  with  the  advocates  of  close  communion  on  two 
things:  1.  That  baptism  is  an  initiating  ordinance,  which 
introduces  into  the  visible  church.  Of  course,  where  there 
is  no  baptism,  there  are  no  visible  churches.  2.  That  we 
ought  not  to  commune  with  those  who  are  not  baptized,  and, 
of  course,  are  not  church  members,  even  if  we  regard  them 
as  Christians.  Should  a  pious  Quaker  so  far  depart  from  his 
principles  as  to  wish  to  commune  with  me  at  the  Lord's 
table,  while  he  yet  refused  to  be  baptized,  I  could  not  receive 
him;  because  there  is  such  a  relation  established  between 
the  two  ordinances,  that  I  have  no  right  to  separate  them ; 
or,  in  other  words,  I  have  no  right  to  send  the  sacred  ele- 
ments out  of  the  church." 

The  Baltimore  Christian  Advocate,  an  organ  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  South,  holds  the  following  lan- 
guage : 

"  That  a  good  man  may  be  a  firm  believer  in  the  necessity 
of  adult  immersion,  we  do  not,  for  a  moment,  doubt;  and 
that  they  who  do  believe  this,  should  decline  communion 
with  the  unbaptized,  is  reasonable  and  consistent.  To  be 
offended  with  the  refusal  of  these  to  commune  with  us,  is 
absurd;  to  reproach  them  for  it,  unkind  and  unjustifiable." 

The  Boston  Recorder,  Congregationalist,  in  a  late  issue, 


"If  we  receive  people  to  the  communion  without  baptism, 


APPENDIX.  87 

we  shall  practically  treat  baptism  as  a  nullity,  and  contribute 
to  its  being  wholly  abandoned." 

"If  our  Baptist  brethren,"  said  Dr.  Beecher,  "are  right 
on  the  mode  and  the  subjects  of  baptism,  they  are  right  on 
the  question  of  communion." 

Kev.  F.  G.  Hibbard,  of  the  Genessee  Conference,  in  a 
"Treatise  on  Infant  Baptism,"  published  "for  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,"  remarks: 

"The  Baptists,  in  passing  the  sweeping  sentence  of  dis- 
franchisement upon  all  other  Christian  churches,  have  only 
acted  upon  a  principle  held  in  common  with  all  other  Chris- 
tian churches,  viz.,  that  baptism  is  essential  to  church  mem- 
bership. *  *  *  *  Of  course  they  must  be  their  own 
judges  as  to  what  baptism  is.  It  is  evident  that,  according 
to  our  views  of  baptism,  we  can  admit  them  to  our  com- 
munion ;  but  with  their  views  of  baptism,  it  is  equally  evi- 
dent, they  can  never  reciprocate  the  courtesy.  And  the 
charge  of  close  communion  is  no  more  applicable  to  the  Bap- 
tists than  to  us,  inasmuch  as  the  question  of  church  fellow- 
ship with  them  is  determined  by  as  liberal  principles  as  it  is 
with  any  other  Protestant  churches,  so  far,  I  mean,  as  the 
present  subject  is  concerned — i.  e.,  it  is  determined  by  valid 
baptism.  *  -  *  *  .  *  They  [Open  Communion  Baptists] 
have  held  to  exclusive  immersion,  and  at  the  same  time  have 
held  to  Catholic  communion,  or  communion  with  persons 
who  have  not  been  immersed — an  anomaly  and  absurdity 
that  present  a  singular  contrast  with  the  characteristic  sym- 
metry of  Christian  theology.  *  *  *  *  It  is  far  less 
responsible,  in  our  estimation,  to  hold  that  baptism  may  be 
administered  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  than  to  hold  fellow- 
ship, at  the  Lord's  table,  with  persons  we  do  not  believe 
have  received  Christian  baptism." — Page  174. 


88  APPENDIX. 

Such  utterances  as  these — and  the  number  might  be  mul- 
tiplied— are  honorable  exceptions  to  the  general  rule.  Let 
our  Pedo-baptist  brethren  generally  exhibit  a  like  spirit  of 
candor;  let  them  cease  to  reproach  us  for  not  doing  what 
they  themselves  would  scorn  to  do;  let  them,  instead  of 
denouncing  us  as  illiberal  and  bigoted,  admit  that  we  are 
consistent,  but  wrong  in  reference  to  baptism ;  let  them  show 
that  we  are  illiterate,  by  demonstrating  that  baptizo,  in 
Greek,  means  to  pour  and  to  sprinkle,  as  well  as  to  immerse  — 
that  all  lexicographers,  ancient  and  modern,  are  wrong  in 
not  thus  defining  the  word  —  that  Calvin,  and  Luther,  and 
Beza,  and  Melancthon,  and  Doddridge,  and  Chalmers,  were 
mistaken  in  supposing  that  Christ  was  immersed  in  the  Jor- 
dan, and  that  the  apostles  immersed  their  disciples;  let  them 
show  us  scriptural  authority  —  either  precept  or  example  — 
for  baptizing  infants  on  the  faith  of  parent  or  sponsor;  let 
them  endeavor  to  convince  us  that  we  are  in  error,  either 
from  misrepresenting  the  Holy  Scriptures  or  in  receiving 
them  as  our  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice;  let  them  thus, 
in  the  spirit  of  their  Master,  address  themselves  to  the  task 
of  reclaiming  us  from  the  error  of  our  ways,  and  they  will 
command  our  respect,  even  if  they  should  fail  to  convince 
our  judgments. 

It  by  no  means  follows,  however,  that  Baptists  could  com- 
mune with  Pedo-baptist  churches,  even  if  they  should  be 
persuaded  that  infant  sprinkling  is  valid  baptism.  Baptist 
churches  would  withhold  church  fellowship  from  any  Bap- 
tist church  that  should  set  aside  and  ignore,  or  ascribe  saving 
efficacy  to  either  Baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper.  Should 
any  Baptist  church  tolerate  in  its  members  a  persistent 
refusal  to  observe  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  a  persistent  refusal 
to  permit  their  believing  children  to  be  baptized  until  they 


APPENDIX.  89 

should  have  arrived  at  a  specified  age,  such  a  church  would 
thereby  forfeit  all  claim  to  be  regarded  by  other  Baptist 
churches  as  in  good  standing  in  the  denomination,  and  would 
be  treated  accordingly.  But  Pedo-baptist  churches  do  toler- 
ate in  their  members  these  very  things.  In  their  confes- 
sions of  faith  they  affirm  that  infant  baptism  is  an  ordinance 
of  the  New  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ;  and  yet 
they  permit  their  members  to  treat  it  as  if  it  were  a  human 
invention  —  to  trample  it  under  their  feet  as  they  would  the 
sacrament  of  "Extreme  Unction"  or  the  "Mass."  The 
Presbyterian  Church,  though  solemnly  affirming,  in  its 
"Confession  of  Faith,"  that  "baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the 
New  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,"  and  "by  Christ's 
own  appointment,  to  be  continued  in  his  church  until  the 
end  of  the  world,"  and  that  "the  infants  of  one  or  both 
believing  parents  are  to  be  baptized,"  and  that  it  is  "a  great 
sin  to  contemn  or  neglect  this  ordinance,"  does  tolerate  in 
its  membership  those  who  both  contemn  and  neglect  it. 
Whatever  may  have  been  their  practice  half  a  century  ago, 
they  do  not  now  exclude  members  for  the  "great  sin"  of 
neglecting  or  refusing  to  have  their  infants  baptized.  And 
could  Baptists  consistently  exercise  less  "charity"  towards 
their  own  than  towards  Presbyterian  churches? 

Again.  Should  any  Baptist  church  establish  a  rule  re- 
quiring its  members,  or  any  portion  of  them,  to  defer  com- 
munion until  a  specified  number  of  years  after  their  baptism, 
such  a  church  would  be  regarded,  by  other  Baptist  churches, 
as  subverting  the  order  of  God's  house,  and  would  be  treated 
as  a  disorderly  church ;  and,  should  said  church  persist  in 
enforcing  the  rule,  the  certain  result  would  be  the  with- 
holding of  church  fellowship  from  it  by  all  regular  Baptist 
ehurehes. 


90  APPENDIX. 

But  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Congregationalists,  and 
Episcopalians,  do  this  when  they  require  their  baptized 
members  to  abstain  from  the  communion  until  they  are  old 
enough  "to  discern  the  Lord's  Supper" — that  is,  until  they 
can  understand  the  significance  of  the  ordinance.  Why  not 
withhold  baptism  also,  until  the  subject  is  old  enough  to 
understand  its  significance?  Infant  baptism  and  infant 
communion  were  not  thus  severed  from  each  other  in  the 
earliest  history  of  infant  church  membership. 

Suppose,  again,  a  Baptist  church  should  receive  applicants 
for  membership  on  a  sort  of  probation  for  six  months; 
should,  during  this  period,  admit  them  to  the  communion  of 
the  church,  as  a  means  of  grace;  and  at  the  expiration  of 
the  six  month,  should  admit  them,  by  baptism,  to  full  mem- 
bership, without  satisfactory  evidence  of  conversion;  could 
regular  Baptist  churches  consistently  fellowship  such  a 
church?  Surely  not.  With  what  propriety,  then,  can  Bap- 
tist churches  extend  to  Methodist  churches  an  invitation  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  whilst,  at  the  same  time,  they  refuse  to 
commune  with  a  Baptist  church  for  practicing  a  Methodist 
custom?  Baptist  churches  are  independent,  acknowledging 
allegiance  to  no  earthly  tribunal,  and  claiming  no  ecclesi- 
astical power,  singly  or  associationally,  to  prescribe  rules 
for  each  other.  As  the  members  of  a  single  church  with- 
hold church  fellowship  from  one  of  their  own  number  whilst 
not  in  "good  standing,"  and  suspend  him  from  church  privi- 
leges until  restored,  so  they  refuse  to  commune  with  any 
church  whose  faith  or  whose  organization  is  essentially 
unevangelical.  The  system  of  probationary  membership 
in  the  Methodist  Church  is  thus  commented  upon  by 
the  Bev.  Dr.  Pierce  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South : 


APPENDIX.  91 

"If  things  are  to  continue  as  they  now  are,  we  must 
cease  to  receive  seekers  into  the  probationary  membership 
of  the  church.  Else  we  will  accumulate  such  a  mass  of 
members,  without  the  benefits  of  spiritual  regeneration,  as 
to  bury  the  spiritual  power  of  our  once  pure  form  of  godli- 
ness under  a  mass  of  attractive  formalism,  which  will  make 
Methodism  a  gorgeous  exhibition  of  mere  outward  cere- 
monies." 

It  is  charged  by  our  opponents  that  we  confine  the  com- 
munion to  Baptist  churches.  This  is  not  true.  The  usual 
formula  of  invitation  —  if  any  invitation  be  extended — is 
this:  "All  members  in  good  standing  in  churches  of  tho 
same  faith  and  order  with  us,  are  invited  to  seats  with  us  at 
the  Lord's  table."  This  invitation  embraces  all  churches, 
of  whatever  name,  that  are  of  the  same  faith  and  order  with 
Baptist  churches.  If  the  Congregational  churches  would 
cease  to  practice,  what  they  do  not  require — viz.,  affusion 
and  infant  baptism — and  recognize  the  immersion  of  believers 
as  the  only  scriptural  and  valid  baptism,  the  terms  of  our 
formula  of  invitation  would  include  them,  and  they  would 
still  be  "Congregational"  churches.  As  they  now  are,  we 
regard  their  faith  as  evangelical;  but  their  admission  of 
infants  to  church  membership  places  them  beyond  the  scope 
of  our  invitation.  The  same  may  be  said,  perhaps,  of  the 
faith  held  by  the  Presbyterian  and  the  Methodist  churches ; 
but  their  unscriptural  forms  of  church  government,  as  well 
as  their  infant  membership  and  their  substitution  of  sprink- 
ling for  baptism,  exclude  them  from  the  terms  of  the  invita- 
tion to  the  Lord's  table,  as  extended  by  Baptist  churches. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  faith  of  the  Reformed  or  "Chris- 
tian" churches — that  the  penitent  believer  is  "not  saved  by 
faith,  but  by  an  net  of  faith,  immersion  into  the  Father,  and 


92  APPENDIX. 

the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit — excludes  them  from  our 
communion,  though  they  practice,  as  we  do,  only  adult  im- 
mersion for  the  Christian  baptism. 

Has  it  never  occurred  to  our  Presbyterian  brethren  that 
they  act  inconsistently  in  communing  with  Baptist  churches? 
If  they  do  not  regard  communion  as  a  test  of  Christian  fel- 
lowship, as  they  certainly  do  not,  how  can  they  recognize  as 
evangelical  a  church  that  is  guilty  of  the  "great  sin"  of 
"contemning  and  neglecting"  infant  baptism,  which  their 
Confession  of  Faith  (p.  144)  affirms  to  be  "a  sacrament  of  the 
New  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ — which  sacra- 
ment is,  by  Christ's  own  appointment,  to  be  continued  in  his 
church  until  the  end  of  the  world?"  Would  they  invite  to 
their  communion  a  denomination  of  professed  Christians  that 
should  wholly  neglect  the  observance,  among  themselves,  of 
the  sacrament  of  the  Supper?  However  orthodox,  in  other 
respects,  such  a  church  might  be,  would  our  Presbyterian 
brethren  regard  and  treat  it  as  a  gospel  church  whilst  it  per- 
sistently refused  to  permit  a  sacrament  of  Christ's  church  to 
be  observed  within  its  own  body?  If  not,  how  can  they 
consistently  or  conscientiously  regard  and  treat  Baptist 
churches  as  evangelical,  whilst  the  latter  "contemn  and 
neglect,"  and  repudiate  as  a  human  invention,  a  solemn  ordi- 
nance of  the  New  Testament  "ordained  by  Jesus  Christ?" 
Or,  does  immersion  wash  from  the  garments  of  Baptist 
parents  the  stain  of  this  "great  sin"  which  affusion  can  not 
remove  from  the  garments  of  Pedo-baptist  parents?  Or,  can 
it  bo  that,  in  spite  of  the  solemn  avowals  of  their  Confessions 
of  Faith,  their  Catechisms,  and  their  Disciplines,  the  "mem- 
bership" of  Pedo-baptist  churches  have  so  little  faith  in  the 
divine  appointment  of  the  "sacrament"  of  infant  baptism, 
and   are,   consequently,  so   blinded   to   the  "great  gin"   of 


APPENDIX.  98 

"neglecting"  it,  that  their  ecclesiastical  judicatories  dare  not 
enforce  its  observance? 

The  history  of  American  Pedo -baptist  churches  (tho 
Episcopal,  perhaps,  excepted)  indicates  an  alarming  deca- 
dence from  the  elevated  position  occupied  by  them,  on  this 
subject,  fifty  years  ago.  Then  the  Christian  parent  who 
persistently  refused  to  bring  his  infant  children  to  the  "bap- 
tismal font"  of  his  church  was  excluded  from  its  communion ; 
and  the  pastor  who  did  not  see  to  it,  that  all  the  lambs  of  his 
flock  were  seasonably  brought  into  the  fold  by  baptism, 
where,  "by  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance,  the  grace  pro- 
mised is  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhibited  and  conferred 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such  (whether  of  age  or  infants)  as 
that  grace  belongeth  unto,"  was  deemed  unworthy  of  the 
sacred  office  of  a  bishop  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

A  Boston  correspondent  of  the  Jonrnal  of  Commerce  thus 
wrote  in  1855: 

"In  one  of  the  oldest  churches  in  this  State  there  had  not 
been,  a  few  years  since,  an  instance  of  infant  baptism  for  the 
seven  preceding  years.  Last  year  there  were  seventy  Con- 
gregational churches  rn  New  Hampshire  that  reported  no 
infant  baptism.  This  year,  ninety-six  churches,  or  about  one 
half  in  the  State,  report  none.  If  this  indifference  continues, 
the  ordinance  will  become  extinct  in  the  Congregational 
churches." 

The  New  York  Independent,  edited  by  an  association  of 
Congregational  clergymen,  thus  complains  of  the  neglect  of 
this  "sacrament"  among  their  churches  in  New  York: 

"In  some  cases  it  is  affirmed  that  this  neglect  has  spread 
so  widely,  and  has  become  so  habitual  in  the  absence  of  a 
pastor,  or  through  his  tacit  consent  to  the  omission,  that  the 
instances  of  baptism  among  the  children  of  church  mambera 


94  APPENDIX. 

are  the  exception  rather  than  the  general  rule,  and  that  the 
efforts  to  revive  it  meet  with  coolness  or  opposition.  The 
members  of  such  churches  doubt  the  propriety  of  adminis- 
tering the  ordinance  to  any  but  adults,  and  in  their  own 
practice  conform  to  their  convictions." 

The  confidence  of  our  Pedo -baptist  brethren  in  sprinkling 
for  baptism,  is,  in  like  manner,  becoming  weaker  and  weaker, 
and  baptisteries  are  beginning  to  be  required  in  some  of 
their  churches  for  the  accommodation  of  the  increasing  num- 
ber of  applicants  for  immersion  among  them.  But  as  there 
is  no  conceivable  reason  why  one  who  regards  sprinkling  as 
scriptural  baptism,  should  prefer  immersion,  the  current  his- 
tory of  American  Pedo-baptist  churches  unmistakably  indi- 
cates a  gradual  but  certain  progress  towards  Baptist  views 
and  practice  in  reference  to  the  "mode"  as  well  as  to  the 
subjects  of  Christian  baptism.  The  barriers  to  open  com- 
munion are  thus  being  removed  by  their  own  hands ;  and  we 
are  encouraged  to  hope  that  the  period  is  not  far  distant, 
when  all  Christians  will  be  seen  standing,  side  by  side,  on 
the  Bible  platform  —  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism. 

Among  the  Baptist  churches  of  the  United  States,  but 
very  few  practice  open  communion — in  Kentucky,  probably 
not  one.  In  the  British  American  provinces  open  com- 
munion, until  recently,  was,  perhaps,  the  general  rule  among 
Baptist  churches.  But  the  pernicious  effects  of  this  unscrip- 
tural  practice  has  become  so  obvious,  that  the  utter  extinc- 
tion of  Baptist  principles  was  foreseen  to  be  the  inevitable 
result  of  its  continuance;  and  our  Baptist  brethren  there 
have  returned  to  the  scriptural  rule,  and  they  are  now  expe- 
riencing its  conservative  and  vitalizing  power.  A  corres- 
pondent of  the  Christian  Watchman,  writing  from  Montreal, 
»ay»: 


APPENDIX.  95 

"In  Canada  we  have  been  dreadfully  troubled  with  this 
vexed  subject,  and  our  experience  ought  to  warn  the  Baptist 
churches  in  the  States  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  open  com- 
munion, for  if  they  do,  assuredly  their  power  and  the  influ- 
ence of  their  testimony  in  favor  of  the  New  Testament 
teaching  on  the  subject  of  the  ordinances  will  be  greatly 
weakened.  We  are  getting  rid  of  it  in  Canada;  though 
originally  many  of  the  churches  were  established  upon  this 
baneful  principle,  yet  its  evil  effects  have  been  so  manifest, 
that  there  is  only  one  Open  Communion  Baptist  church 
east  of  Kingston,  and  one  or  two  west  of  it,  and  none  of 
them  in  a  very  flourishing  condition." 


HISTORY 


INFANT    BAPTISM, 


REV.   J.   L.   WALLER,    LL.D. 


CHAPTER  I 


A  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  designed  as  a  defence  of 
the  rite,  was  put  forth  early  in  the  last  century,  by  William 
Wall,  Vicar  of  Shoreham,  Kent,  in  England.  This  work 
has  obtained  great  celebrity  j  and  its  author  received  the 
thanks  of  the  clergy  of  England  in  convocation  assembled, 
and  also  the  honor  of  Doctor  of  Divinity's  degree  from  the 
University  of  Oxford  —  so  many  were  the  obligations  under 
which  the  Pedo-baptists  felt  themselves  laid  by  his  defence 
of  their  favorite  doctrine !  No  Baptist  has  ever  undertaken 
a  history  of  the  same  subject.  For  some  years  past  our 
reading  has  led  us  to  the  investigation  of  the  rise  and  spread 
of  Infant  Baptism,  and  we  have  been  called  upon  by  breth- 
ren in  diiferent  quarters  of  the  United  States  to  prepare  its 
history.  This  we  propose  now  to  do,  in  a  review  of  Dr. 
Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism;  traversing  his  grounds 
and  examining  his  conclusions,  and   also  presenting   other 

proofs  and  arguments  calculated  to  lead  the  mind  to  a  pro- 

9 


2  HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

per  appreciation  of  the  subject,  and  of  the  great  issues 
involved  in  its  adjustment. 

Infant  Baptism  is  intimately  associated  with  interests  of 
vital  importance  to  the  purity,  harmony,  and  efficiency  of 
the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  to  the  dearest  and  most  sacred 
rights  and  privileges  of  man.  By  it  millions  of  the  human 
family  every  year  are  initiated  into  churches  and  made  vas- 
sals to  systems  and  establishments  without  their  knowledge 
and  consent.  By  this  rite,  all  the  national  churches  of  the 
world  have  been  sustained;  and  it  is  the  means  by  which  the 
Pope  of  Borne  has  marked  and  claimed  as  his  subjects  and 
slaves  the  millions  that  have  composed  his  dominions.  If 
Infant  Baptism  be  all  that  is  claimed  for  it  by  the  great 
majority  of  its  advocates,  then  the  visible  church  of  Christ  is 
no  longer  a  "congregation  of  faithful  men."  It  ceases  to 
be  "a  voluntary  society  of  men,  joining  themselves  together 
of  their  own  accord,  in  order  to  the  public  worshipping  of 
God,  in  such  manner  as  they  judge  most  acceptable  to  him, 
and  effectual  to  the  salvation  of  their  souls."  Infant  Bap- 
tism teaches  that  individuals  are  born  members  of  the 
church!  Beligious  privileges  are  claimed  to  be  hereditary, 
descending  by  the  sanctions  of  divine  law  from  parents  to 
their  children;  and,  consequently,  that  membership  and  all 
the  rights  in  the  house  of  God  are  inherited  by  children  as 
they  inherit  temporal  estates!  Dr.  Miller,  in  his  work  on 
Baptism,  published  by  the  Presbyterian  Tract  and  Sunday- 
School  Society,  says: 

"Can  it  be,  my  friends,  that  when  the  stem  is  in  the 
church,  the  branch  is  out  of  it?  Can  it  be  that  when  the 
parent  is  in  the  visible  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer,  his  off- 
spring, bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh,  have  no  con- 
nection with  it?     It  is  not  eo  in  any  other  society  that  the 


HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BArTISM.  3 

great  moral  Governor  of  the  world  ever  formed.  It  is  not  so 
in  civil  society.  Children  are  born  citizens  of  the  State  in 
which  their  parents  resided  at  the  time  of  their  birth.  In 
virtue  of  their  birth  they  are  plenary  citizens,  bound  by  all 
the  duties,  and  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  that  relation, 
whenever  they  become  capable  of  exercising  them.  From 
these  duties  they  can  not  be  liberated.  Of  these  privileges 
they  can  not  be  deprived,  but  by  the  commission  of  crime. 
But  why  should  this  great  principle  be  set  aside  in  the 
church  of  God?  Surely  it  is  not  less  obvious  or  less  power- 
ful in  grace  than  in  nature.  The  analogies  which  pervade 
all  the  works  and  dispensations  of  God  are  too  uniform  and 
striking  to  be  disregarded  in  an  inquiry  like  the  present." — 
Page  8. 

Moral  character,  then,  has  nothing  to  do  necessarily  with 
the  pre-requisites  of  citizenship  in  the  gospel  kingdom;  and 
hence,  at  this  hour,  according  to  Infant  Baptism,  almost  all 
the  inhabitants  of  the  civilized  world  are  actual  members  of 
the  visible  church  of  Christ! 

This  rite,  too,  is  supposed  to  confer  far  greater  and  more 
enduring  blessings  than  mere  membership  in  the  church 
militant.  The  great  majority  of  Pedo-baptists  contend,  that 
infants  dying  unbaptized  will  be  driven  away  into  everlast- 
ing punishment  —  that  by  baptism  their  souls  are  regenerated 
and  their  sins  forgiven !  Hence  in  some  of  the  nominal 
Christian  nations,  it  is  a  penal  offence  against  the  State  for 
parents  to  neglect  the  baptism  of  their  children.  In  others, 
it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  magistrate  to  take  by  force  of 
arms,  and  to  have  baptism  administered  to,  the  children  of 
such  parents  as  conscientiously  believe  this  rite  to  be  a 
human  invention.  A  great  number  of  persons  have  been 
put  to  death  for  opposing  Infant  Baptism ;  and  everywhere, 


4  HI8T0RY   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

by  the  great  mass  of  professing  Christians,  the  Baptists  are 
regarded  as  wickedly  callous  to  the  spiritual  interests  of  their 
offspring,  and  for  many  ages  they  were  esteemed  as  unworthy 
of  life,  and  were  pursued  and  persecuted  as  monsters  of 
impiety;  and  even  now,  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  they 
are  suffering  imprisonment  and  confiscation  of  goods  — 
inflicted  by  Protestants!  The  baptism  of  an  adult  is  rarely, 
if  ever,  performed  by  the  majority  of  those  who  profess  to 
have  received  a  commission  from  the  Lord  to  disciple  and 
baptize  the  nations.  Comparatively  few  persons  are  now  bap- 
tized upon  their  own  profession  of  faith;  the  overwhelming 
mass  are  baptized  in  infancy. 

For  the  reason  of  these  opinions  and  practices,  we  look  in 
vain  to  the  Scriptures.  In  them,  the  church  of  the  Redeemer 
stands  exalted  by  the  moral  grandeur  of  its  membership  and 
the  benign  spirit  of  its  principles.  How,  then,  became  the 
beauty  of  the  gospel  so  marred?  This  question  history  alone 
can  answer;  and  the  annals  of  Infant  Baptism,  written  in 
lines  of  blood  and  folly,  will  reveal  many  of  the  mournful 
causes  of  those  corruptions,  and  superstitions,  and  persecu- 
tions, which  have  brought  reproach  upon  the  name  and  now 
hinder  the  triumphs  of  our  holy  religion.  History  will 
vindicate  the  Bible  from  the  suspicion  of  giving  birth  to  the 
abominations,  practical  and  theoretical,  which  we  have  men- 
tioned, and  demonstrate  that  they  are  the  hideous  production 
of  ignorance  and  error,  of  darkness  and  perdition. 

Let  us  not  be  suspected  of  ascribing  the  sentiments  and 
practices  alluded  to  above  to  all  the  adherents  of  Infant 
Baptism.  Far  from  it.  There  are  whole  denominations 
who  baptize  infants,  but  who  loathe  and  detest  many  of 
these  things,  looking  upon  them  with  a  contempt  as  sovereign 
and  supreme  as  our  own.     But  among  such,  Infant  Baptism 


HISTORY   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM.  5 

is  little  else  than  the  Bolemn  sprinkling  of  water  in  children's 
faces  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  Trne,  they  call  it  dedica- 
tion to  God,  giving  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  by  other 
pompous  and  high  sounding  appellations,  which  mean  very 
little,  if  any  thing  at  all,  when  fully  explained,  and  are  cal- 
culated rather  to  provoke  a  smile  than  any  serious  remark. 
These  denominations  do  not  believe  that  baptism  regenerates 
infants,  or  in  any  way  improves  their  moral  condition,  and 
the  most  they  can  plead  in  behalf  of  the  rite  is,  that  it  can 
do  no  harm,  or,  that  it  binds  parents  to  train  their  children 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord;  as  if  that  were 
not  an  obligation  independent  of  all  ceremonial  observances, 
as  binding  from  the  birth  of  the  first  infant  to  the  present 
time,  as  it  was  possible  to  be  made  by  the  cords  of  parental 
affection  and  the  mandate  of  the  Almighty — as  if  Baptists 
were  not  as  much  bound  by  the  requisition,  and  could  not 
as  well  observe  it,  as  the  Pedo-baptists!  But  history  proves 
that  this  system  of  Infant  Baptism  is  a  novelty,  that  its  advo- 
cates are  few  and  comparatively  modern ;  and  that  except  in 
the  naked  article,  that  infants  should  be  baptized,  this  system 
can  claim  but  little  affinity,  as  it  bears  scarcely  any  resem- 
blance, to  that  great  tree  of  Infant  Baptism  whose  roots  have 
been  striking  downwards  for  centuries,  and  whose  branches 
have  shut  out  from  nations  the  sunlight  of  the  gospel.  We 
are  to  judge  of  Infant  Baptism,  not  by  its  exceptions — by 
the  few  who  are  entitled  to  some  degree  of  credit  for  decency 
and  propriety  of  sentiment  in  their  reasons  for  its  adminis- 
tration—  but  by  the  mass  of  its  defenders;  and  especially 
ought  its  merits  to  be  determined  by  reference  to  those  ages 
and  countries  where  it  flourished  almost  without  an  oppo- 
nent in  all  the  pride  of  its  strength. 

An  argument  for  the  truth  of  Infant  Baptism  has  been 


6  HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

derived  by  Dr.  Wall  from  its  general  prevalence ;  and  a  dis- 
tinguished advocate  of  the  system  has  recently  said,  that 
"this  rite  has  commanded  the  firm  belief  of  almost  the 
whole  of  Christendom  in  all  ages;  not  of  the  ignorant  and 
superstitious  only  or  chiefly,  but  of  the  wise  and  good  —  of 
those  who  have  taken  the  Bible  as  their  only  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.  The  overwhelming  mass  of  those  who 
have  diligently  sought  to  know  their  duty,  as  connected  with 
this  interesting  subject,  have  understood  the  Scriptures  to 
teach,  that  the  children  of  believing  parents  ought  to  be 
baptized.  The  exceptions  to  this  are  less  than  one  to  a 
thousand.  The  opposers  of  this  doctrine,  compared  even 
with  Protestant  Christendom,  are  a  mere  handful.  Now,  if 
the  Bible  be  a  plain  book,  easily  to  be  understood  on  all 
important  points,  how  could  the  great  majority  of  Bible 
readers  believe  that  it  taught  what  it  does  not?  How  unac- 
countable has  been  the  infatuation  of  almost  the  whole 
Christian  world,  on  the  supposition  that  this  doctrine  is  false 
and  absurd."* 

Whenever  it  is  fairly  shown  that  a  doctrine  has  always 
and  everywhere  been  received  as  scriptural  by  the  mass  of 
pious,  intelligent,  and  careful  readers  of  the  Bible,  we 
frankly  confess  that  it  presents  to  our  mind  a  most  powerful 
presumption  of  its  truth;  and  whether  adduced  by  Papist 
or  Protestant,  we  feel  no  disposition  to  disparage  its  force. 
The  Bible  was  given  to  be  read  and  understood  by  men, 
which  would  not  be  true  if  the  great  majority  of  its  most 
careful  and  critical  readers — unswayed  by  other  motives 
than  to  learn  what  it  teaches  and  to  obey  what  it  enjoins — 
were  wholly  to  mistake  its  requisitions  in  relation  to  one  of 
the  most  important  ordinances  of  the  gospel.  If  it  were 
•  Dr.  Rice,  in  his  Debate  with  Mr.  Campbell. 


niSTORY   OF    INFANT   BAPTISM.  7 

made  to  appear,  then,  that  there  has  been  perfect  unanimity 
among  the  Pedo-baptists,  present  and  past,  in  their  affirma- 
tions respecting  the  Bible  authority  for  Infant  Baptism;  or 
even  if  it  were  shown,  that  there  had  been  a  general  concur- 
rence of  views  among  them  on  this  subject,  we  should  regard 
their  cause  as  presenting  a  most  formidable  front  to  the 
boldest  opponent,  and,  for  one,  we  should  almost  tremble  to 
raise  a  finger  against  it. 

But  have  the  Pedo-baptists  uttered  one  voice  in  relation 
to  Infant  Baptism?  Have  they  all  testified  the  same  things? 
Have  their  declarations  respecting  the  scriptural  warrant  for 
their  practice  been  uncontradictory  and  harmonious?  No — 
emphatically,  NO !  God  has  confounded  the  language  of  the 
builders  of  this  moral  Babel,  and  every  variety  of  speech — 
confused,  discordant,  and  contradictory  —  has  been  uttered 
upon  the  subject.  Some  of  them  say,  that  Infant  Baptism 
is  taught  in  the  Bible;  others,  that  it  is  not,  that  tradition 
teaches  it.  Those  who  contend  that  the  Scriptures  authorize 
it,  can  not  agree  where  the  passages  in  its  favor  are  to  be 
found;  and  if  we  take  all  their  statements  in  the  case  equally 
worthy  of  credit,  then  all  the  authority  for  it  in  the  word  of 
God,  is  a  vagrant  warrant,  constantly  wandering  from  place 
to  place  in  the  Bible,  and  never  to  be  overtaken  by  turning 
over  its  leaves !  No  Pedo-baptist  has  ever  adduced  a  pas- 
sage sufficiently  obvious  to  satisfy  the  consciences  of  his 
brethren.  Every  text  of  Scripture  ever  brought  to  prove 
this  doctrine,  has  been  shown  by  Pedo-baptists  themselves 
not  to  prove  it  at  all !  We  challenge  the  production  of 
one  exception.  With  their  own  hands  they  have  pulled 
down  their  own  temple,  not  leaving  one  stone  upon  another. 
They  have  torn  up  its  very  foundations.  Indeed,  until  the 
days  of  the  great  Genevan  Reformer,  the  Pedo-baptists  with 


8  HISTORY   OP   1NPANT   BAPTISM. 

united  voice  testified,  that  the  Scriptures  required  a  profes- 
sion of  faith  and  repentance  of  every  candidate  of  baptism; 
and  not  even  the  most  helpless  infant  was  admitted  to  the 
ordinance  without  a  solemn  renunciation  of  the  world  and 
avowal  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  made  by  it  through  its  spon- 
sors. If  the  testimony  of  the  religious  world,  therefore, 
proves  any  thing,  it  proves  that  the  Bible  teaches,  that  pro- 
fessed believers  are  the  only  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  So 
the  great  mass  of  Christians  do  now  and  have  ever  declared. 
This  was  a  point  undisputed,  until  the  days  of  John  Calvin. 
The  advocates  of  Infant  Baptism  find  great  difficulty  in 
fixing  upon  the  period  of  its  commencement.  It  is  a  matter 
on  which  a  great  diversity  of  sentiment  exists.  They  agree 
only  in  affirming,  that  the  point  of  time  when  the  founda- 
tions of  this  system  were  laid  is  to  be  found  somewhere  in 
the  long  lapse  of  ages  intervening  between  the  call  of  Abra- 
ham out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  and  the  third  century  of  the 
Christian  era,  when  certain  Africans  were  laboring  to  engraft 
upon  the  institutions  of  the  New  Testament  the  wildest 
vagaries  of  superstition.  All  Pedo-baptists  agree  that  bap- 
tism is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus 
Christ;  yet  not  one  of  them  pretends  that  the  most  eagle 
optics  with  which  any  man  was  ever  blessed,  are  adequate  to 
the  perception  of  Infant  Baptism  in  the  writings  of  the 
apostles  and  evangelists,  if  these  writings  be  examined  with- 
out extraneous  helps.  They  are  constrained  to  confess  that 
infants  and  baptism  are  distinct  words,  no  where  joined 
together  in  the  New  Testament.  God  has  put  them 
asunder.  Hence  the  most  lynx-eyed  Pedo-baptists  have  to 
obtain  lights  outside  of  the  New  Testament  to  enable  them 
to  perceive  even  an  apparition  of  their  doctrine  on  its  sacred 
pages.     Some  obtain  their  lights  on  this,  and  some  on  the 


HISTORY    OP   INFANT    BAPTISM.  9 

other  side  of  the  apostolic  age.  One  party  tells  us  that 
Infant  Baptism  was  general  in  the  third,  or  at  least  in  the 
fourth  century;  that  history  gives  no  account  of  its  origin 
this  side  of  the  apostles;  and,  therefore,  it  must  be  taught 
in  the  New  Testament!  But  another  party,  aware  that  this 
is  enchanted  ground,  and  conscious  if  such  reasoning  be 
admitted,  it  would  clothe  with  divine  sanction  all  the  most 
important  mummeries  and  inventions  of  the  papacy,  utterly 
reject  it;  and  passing  nearly  nineteen  centuries  beyond  the 
apostles,  on  the  plains  of  Mamre,  they  create  such  a  flood  of 
refulgence  in  favor  of  their  doctrine  out  of  the  command  of 
God  to  Abraham  in  relation  to  circumcision,  as  to  feel  that 
they  need  no  light  whatever  from  the  New  Testament. 
Hence  they  not  only  admit  the  silence  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  rejoice  in  that  silence!  Dr.  Miller,  in  the  tract 
before  cited,  says:  "Instead  of  our  Baptist  brethren  having 
a  right  to  call  upon  us  to  find  a  direct  warrant  in  the  New 
Testament,  in  favor  of  infant  membership,  we  have  a  right 
to  call  upon  them  to  produce  a  direct  warrant  for  the  great 
and  sudden  change  which  they  allege  took  place.  If  it  be, 
as  they  say,  that  the  New  Testament  is  silent  on  this  sub- 
ject, this  very  silence  is  quite  sufficient  to  destroy  their 
cause,  and  to  establish  ours."*  How  wonderful  the  ear  that 
catches  the  sounds  of  silence!  How  sweet  to  one  blessed 
with  such  a  rare  possession,  must  be  the  music  of  stillness, 
echoed  by  the  hills  of  nonentity!  To  such  persons,  of 
course,  the  silence  of  the  New  Testament  is  as  the  voice  of 
many  waters  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism ! 

But  Dr.  Wall  seemed  to  think  that  the  days  of  Abraham 
were  too  remote  to  suit  the  exigencies  of  Infant  Baptism. 
He  and  a  host  with  him  appear  to  be  of  opinion,  that  rays 
*  Page  35. 


10  HISTORY    OF    INFANT   BAPTISM. 

emitted  from  such  a  distance  fall  too  feebly  upon  the  New 
Testament  to  impart  much  light  or  heat  to  their  favorite 
system.  Hence  they  travel  down  the  pathway  of  centuries, 
and  fix  upon  an  indefinite  point  of  time  subsequent  to 
Moses  and  anterior  to  the  Messiah's  advent,  when  some  one 
first  perpetrated  the  folly  and  wickedness  of  baptizing  a 
proselyte  to  the  Jewish  religion;  and  by  means  of  this 
human  invention,  they  fancy  that  they  are  able  to  see  Infant 
Baptism  practised  by  John  the  Baptist,  the  apostles,  and  all 
primitive  ministers,  and  from  them  spreading  out  over  all 
nations,  through  all  generations,  to  the  present  time!  But 
this  theory  has  one  capital  defect  at  least — it  has  710  founda- 
tion! Proselyte  baptism,  before  the  days  of  Messiah,  did 
not  exist.  But  more  of  this  hereafter.  In  this  practice, 
according  to  Dr.  Wall,  was  laid  the  foundation  of  Infant 
Baptism.  With  that,  then,  is  our  first  business;  and  we  arc 
content  to  commence  the  history  of  Infant  Baptism  with  it, 
and  leave  the  issue  with  the  candid  of  every  persuasion. 


HISTORY    OF    INFANT   BAPTISM.  11 


CHAPTER   II. 

The  Scriptures  say  nothing  of  Infant  Baptism — The  Commission  of  Christ  the  law  of 
Baptism — That  the  question  turns  upon  this  law,  confessed  by  Dr.  Wall — Dr. 
Wall  concedes  that  from  the  Bible  alone  we  can  not  learn  Infant  Baptism — Derives 
it  from  Jewish  proselyte  baptism — The  nature  of  that  baptism — Dr.  Wall's  argu- 
ment upon  it — Predicates  Infant  Baptism  on  a  Jewish  custom  and  not  on  the  Com- 
mission— His  illustration  by  substituting  circumcision  shown  to  be  illogical — 
Jewish  proselyte  baptism  could  not  prove  Infant  Baptism,  even  if  it  existed — Proved 
not  to  have  existed  in  the  days  of  the  Savior's  incarnation — The  writers  adduced  as 
witnesses  not  worthy  of  credit  on  such  a  point — Eminent  Pedo-baptists  deny  the 
existence  of  such  a  custom — Prof.  Stuart  and  Dr.  Owen  quoted  as  denying  it. 

* 

The  historian  of  Infant  Baptism  can  gather  no  materials 
for  his  subject  from  the  New  Testament.  That  rite  has  the 
sanction  of  neither  precept  nor  example  in  the  writings  of 
the  evangelists  and  apostles.  The  gloom  and  the  silence  of 
the  grave  brood  over  it.  This  is  confessed  on  all  hands,  as 
might  be  shown  from  the  writings  of  the  most  distinguished 
Pedo-baptists.  But  we  discard  the  concessions  of  opponents 
on  such  a  question.  This  is  a  point  which  every  one  can 
settle  for  himself.  The  Bible  is  in  the  hands  of  the  people ; 
they  can  examine  and  see  that  not  one  word  is  said  about 
the  baptism  of  infants  in  all  the  Scriptures.  Every  minis- 
ter who  gives  this  rite  to  unconscious  babes  professes  to  act 
by  the  authority  of  the  great  commission — "Go  ye  there- 
fore, and  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost: 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded you;  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world."     Mat.  xxviii.  19,  20.     This  passage  is 


12  HISTORY   OP   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

all  the  authority  in  the  Scriptures  for  the  use  of  the  solemn 
and  awful  name  of  the  Trinity  in  baptism,  and  all  who  bap- 
tize infants  use  this  name  in  their  ministration.  The  true 
question  is,  Does  this  commission  authorize  the  baptism  of 
infants?  If  it  does  not,  the  minister  who  baptizes  an  infant 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  acts  without  divine  warrant,  and  performs  as  much 
an  act  of  will-worship  as  if  he  baptized  a  bell  in  this  name. 
But  if  this  commission  does  warrant  Infant  Baptism,  then 
the  inference  may  legitimately  be  drawn  that  it  was  practiced 
by  the  apostles  and  their  co-laborers,  although  no  instance 
of  their  having  done  so  may  be  upon  record.  The  commis- 
sion, then,  must  settle  the  controversy. 

Dr.  Wall  so  understands  the  matter;  and  hence  his  first 
business  is  to  show  that  the  commission  allows  Infant  Bap- 
tism. This  he  attempts  to  infer  from  Jewish  proselyte  bap- 
tism. He  admits  that  the  commission,  independent  of 
extraneous  proof — of  proof  derived  outside  of  the  Bible — 
does  not  favor  Infant  Baptism.     In  his  Preface,  he  says : 

"Forasmuch  as  the  commission  given  by  our  Savior  to  his 
disciples,  in  the  time  of  his  mortal  life,  to  baptize  in  the 
country  of  Judea,  is  not  at  all  set  down  in  Scripture;  only 
it  is  said,  that  they  baptized  a  great  many,  and  the  enlarge- 
ment of  that  commission  given  them  afterwards,  Mat.  xxviii. 
19,  to  perform  the  same  office  among  all  the  heathen  nations, 
is  set  down  in  such  brief  words,  that  there  is  no  particular 
direction  given  what  they  were  to  do  in  reference  to  the 
children  of  those  that  received  the  faith ;  and  among  all  the 
persons  that  are  recorded  as  baptized  by  the  apostles,  there 
is  no  express  mention  of  any  infant;  nor  is  there,  on  tbe 
other  side,  any  account  of  any  Christians  child,  whose  bap- 
tism was  put  off  until  he  was  grown  up,  or  who  was  baptized 


HISTORY   OF   INFANT    BATTISM.  13 

at  man's  age :  (for  all  the  persons  that  are  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture to  have  been  baptized,  were  the  children  of  heathens,  or 
else  of  Jews,  who  did  not  believe  in  Christ  at  that  time  when 
those  their  children  were  born  :)  and  since  the  proofs  drawn  by 
consequences  from  some  places  of  Scripture,  for  any  one  side 
of  this  question,  are  not  so  plain  as  to  hinder  the  arguments 
drawn  from  other  places  for  the  other  side,  from  seeming 
still  considerable  to  those  that  have  no  help  from  the  history 
of  the  Scripture  times  for  the  better  understanding  of  the 
rules  of  Scripture;  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  readers  of  Scrip- 
ture, at  this  distance  from  the  apostles'  times,  have  fallen 
into  contrary  sentiments  about  the  meaning  of  our  Savior's 
command,  and  the  practice  of  the  apostles  in  reference  to  the 
baptizing  of  infants."* 

Here  it  is  conceded,  that  the  commission  furnishes  no 
authority  for  Infant  Baptism,  and  that  if  we  were  to  derive 
proof  alone  from  the  Scriptures,  the  baptism  of  infants  could 
not  be  established;  and  hence  Dr.  Wall  urges  the  necessity. 
of  seeking  other  lights  in  order  to  ascertain  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit  on  this  subject.     In  his  Introduction,  he  says: 

"Now  our  Savior's  law  concerning  baptizing  all  the 
nations,  is,  as  I  showed  in  the  preface,  set  down  in  Scripture 
in  very  short  and  general  words;  and  many  people  of  later 
times  have  doubted  whether  it  is  to  be  understood  to  reach 
to  the  baptizing  of  infants  or  only  of  adult  persons.  All 
that  have  any  doubt,  ought  to  learn,  as  well  as  they  can,  what 
was  the  state  of  the  Jewish  religion  as  to  baptism,  at  and 
before  that  time  when  our  Savior  gave  his  order  for  baptizing 
all  the  nations ;  and  what  we  must  suppose  the  apostles  did 
of  themselves  already  know  concerning  its  being  proper  or 
improper  for  infants,  which  it  might  not  be  so  needful  for 

*  Pp.  29,  30. 


li  HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

our  Savior  to  express  in  his  new  direction  to  them.  And 
also  they  ought  to  learn  as  well  as  they  can,  how  the  first 
Christians  did  practice  in  this  matter ;  whether  they  baptized 
their  infants  or  not."* 

With  respect  to  the  practice  of  professed  Christians  subse- 
quent to  the  apostolic  age,  we  make  no  remark  at  present: 
that  will  receive  attention  in  due  time.  The  existence  of  bap- 
tism among  the  Jews  prior  to  and  at  the  time  of  John  and 
and  of  Jesus,  and  independent  of  them,  is  the  matter  now  in 
hand.  If  that  furnishes  no  aid  in  our  interpretation  of  the 
commission,  then  this  resource  of  Infant  Baptism  is  cut  off, 
and  the  whole  scheme,  according  to  Dr.  Wall,  must  crumble 
to  dust.  Dr.  Wall  asserts,  and  attempts  to  prove,  that  long 
before  John  came  baptizing,  a  custom  prevailed  among  the 
Jews  of  baptizing  proselytes.  That  is,  when  one  from  the 
heathen  wished  to  profess  the  Jewish  religion,  if  a  male,  he 
was  initiated  by  circumcision,  immersion,  and  bringing  a 
sacrifice ;  if  a  female,  by  immersion  and  bringing  a  sacrifice. 
The  rule  in  relation  to  infants  was:  "Any  male  child  of 
such  a  proselyte,  that  was  under  the  age  of  thirteen  years 
and  a  day,  and  females  that  were  under  twelve  years  and  a 
day,  they  baptized  as  infants  at  the  request  and  by  the  assent 
of  the  father  or  the  authority  of  the  court;  because  such  a 
one  was  not  yet  the  son  of  assent,  as  they  phrase  it  —  i.  e.,  not 
capable  to  give  assent  for  himself,  but  the  thing  is  for  his 
good.  If  they  were  above  that  age,  they  consented  for  them- 
selves." f 

From  this  custom,  Dr.  Wall  argues  as  follows: 
"  Now  this  gives  great  light  for  the  better  understanding 
the  meaning  of  our  Savior,  when  he  bids  his  apostles  'go  and 
disciple  all  the  nations,  and  baptize  them.'     For  when  a 

*  Pp.  2,  3.  f  Introduction,  p.  17. 


HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  15 

commission  is  given  in  such  short  words,  and  there  is  no 
express  direction  what  they  shall  do  with  the  infants  of  those 
who  become  proselytes,  the  natural  and  obvious  interpreta- 
tion is,  that  they  must  do  in  that  matter  as  they  and  the 
church  in  which  they  lived  always  used  to  do. 

"As  now  at  this  time,  if  an  island  or  country  of  heathens 
be  discovered,  and  a  minister  be  sent  out  to  them  by  the 
bishops  of  the  church  of  England,  who  should  say,  'Go  and 
convert  such  a  nation,  and  baptize  them;'  he  would  know, 
without  asking  any  question,  that  he  must  baptize  the 
infants  of  those  who,  being  converted,  offered  them  to  bap- 
tism; because  he  knows  that  to  be  the  meaning  and  the 
custom  of  that  church  or  bishop  by  which  he  is  sent.  And, 
on  the  contrary,  if  any  one  were  sent  from  a  church  or  con- 
gregation of  anti-Pedo-baptists,  with  a  commission  of  the 
same  words,  'Go  and  convert  such  a  nation,  and  baptize 
them ; '  he  would  take  it  for  granted  that  he  must  baptize 
none  of  their  infants,  because  he  knows  that  to  be  contrary 
to  the  meaning  and  custom  of  the  church  that  sends  him."* 

This  concedes  that  infants  could  not  be  baptized  by  the 
commission,  but  by  the  custom  which  existed  when  the  com- 
mission was  given.  The  commission  itself  requires  that  dis- 
ciples should  be  baptized,  and,  of  course,  not  infants;  so,  by 
the  commission  alone  no  one  would  baptize  infants.  And 
Dr.  "Wall  represents  that  those  who  bear  this  commission, 
obtain  authority  for  Infant  Baptism  not  from  it,  but  from 
the  custom.  Hence,  he  argues,  that  a  missionary  of  the 
Church  of  England,  sent  out  by  this  commission,  would  bap- 
tize infants,  not  because  the  commission  told  him  to  do  so, 
but  because  the  custom  of  his  church  required  it.  The 
apostles,  then,  by  a  law  to  baptize  disciples,  did  not  baptize 
*  Introduction,  pp.  21,  22. 


16  HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

infants.  It"  they  baptized  infanta  at  all,  they  derived  author- 
ity not  from  the  law  of  the  Savior  but  from  a  tradition  of  the 
Jews.  This  is  Dr.  Wall's  position.  Infant  Baptism  is 
derived  from  a  Jewish  custom,  and  not  from  the  commission 
to  baptize.     It  is  not  of  heaven,  but  of  men. 

Dr.  Wall  further  argues: 

"But  if  they  would  put  this  case:  suppose  our  Savior  had 
bid  the  apostles  go  and  disciple  all  the  nations,  and  (instead 
of  baptizing,  had  said)  eircumcise  them;  an  anti-Pedo-baptist 
will  grant,  in  that  case,  without  any  more  words,  that  the 
apostles  must  have  circumcised  the  infants  of  the  nations  as 
well  as  the  grown  men,  though  there  had  been  no  express 
mention  of  infants  in  the  commission."* 

But  an  anti-Pedo-baptist  will  grant  no  such  thing,  Dr. 
Wall.  The  conclusion  is  illogical  and  far-fetched.  A  com- 
mand to  circumcise  disciples  no  more  includes  infants  than  a 
command  to  baptize  disciples.  The  term  disciple  can  not  be 
made  to  mean  an  infant,  by  merely  putting  circumcise  before 
it.  The  man  who  went  out  under  a  law  to  circumcise  dis- 
ciples only,  could  never  circumcise  infants  by  that  law.  If 
he  circumcised  infants  at  all,  he  must  have  done  so  by  some 
other  law,  or  else  wholly  without  law. 

But  granting  the  existence  of  the  custom  in  the  days  of 
John  the  Baptist  and  of  Jesus,  still  Jewish  proselyte  baptism 
bears  not  the  slightest  resemblance  to  Christian  baptism. 
The  Almighty  never  gave  proselyte  baptism  to  the  Jews.  It 
was  a  human  invention  —  a  foolish  tradition — sheer  will- 
worship — an  impious  institution.  It  is  nowhere  intimated 
in  the  Scriptures  that  Christian  baptism  was  borrowed  from 
this  silly  and  wicked  tradition ;  as  silly  and  wicked  as  the 
baptism  of  bells  and  the  festival  of  the  ass  among  the 
*  Ut  supra.,  p.  23. 


HISTORY    OP   INFANT   BAPTISM.  17 

Papists.  And  why  suppose  that  Jesus  borrowed  only  the 
baptism  of  infants  from  this  superstition?  Why  did  he  not 
adopt  the  whole  custom?  If  Infant  Baptism,  as  now  prac- 
ticed, is  right  by  this  custom  without  any  warrant  of  law, 
why  any  command  to  baptize  at  all?  The  custom  could  have 
established  the  baptism  of  adults  as  well  as  of  infants.  And 
why  should  we  construe  the  law  by  this  custom  to  favor 
Infant  Baptism  merely?  We  should  take  the  whole  custom 
or  none.  Why  then  baptize  children  born  of  baptized  parents, 
or  whose  ancestors  had  been  baptized,  seeing  that  this  tradi- 
tion of  the  Jews  positively  forbid  their  baptism?  And  why 
dispense  with  the  sacrifice  required  of  male  and  female? 
Surely  these  were  as  much  parts  of  the  custom  —  as  sacred 
and  as  obligatory  —  as  that  of  the  baptism  of  infants. 

But,  according  to  Jewish  proselyte  baptism,  neither  John 
nor  the  disciples  of  Jesus  should  have  baptized  the  Jews. 
No  Jew  could  receive  this  baptism ;  it  was  to  be  administered 
only  to  heathens  proselyted  to  the  Jewish  religion.  John 
was  sent  of  heaven  to  violate  this  custom,  for  he  was  sent 
expressly  to  baptize  Jews.  The  Savior,  before  his  crucifixion, 
sent  out  his  disciples,  and  ordered  them  to  disregard  this 
tradition,  for  he  sent  them  to  baptize  Jews  only.  In  his 
great  commission,  he  commanded  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles  to 
be  baptized;  thus  proving  by  this  last  solemn  command,  as 
he  had  proved  in  his  prior  conduct,  that  he  utterly  con- 
temned this  human  invention  —  that  he,  and  not  weak  and 
superstitious  Jewish  rabbins,  was  the  lawgiver  in  Zion.  It 
is  a  strange  inference,  then,  to  conclude  that  he  expected  his 
disciples  to  practice  Infant  Baptism  in  obedience  to  a  custom 
which  he  had  taught  them  constantly  to  violate  and  despise. 

But  there  was  no  such  custom  existing  when  the  commis- 
sion was  given.     No  writer  within  several  centuries  of  the 

10 


18  HISTORY    OP    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

birth  of  the  Savior  mentions  it.  There  is  no  allusion  to  it 
in  the  Bible.  Josephus,  although  a  Jew,  and  one  who  wrote 
extensively  of  Jewish  customs,  knows  nothing  of  its  exis- 
tence. Philo  makes  no  mention  of  such  a  custom.  And  on 
such  a  question  as  this,  are  we  to  disregard  the  silence  of 
contemporary  writers,  and  implicitly  follow  the  testimony  of 
men  who  affirm  of  matters  centuries  after  they  transpired — 
and  men  too  who  have  testified  to  the  most  improbable  false- 
hoods? We  will  quote  from  Dr.  Gale  some  matters  which 
these  Jewish  retailers  of  old  wives'  fables  relate,  with  the 
same  gravity  of  narration  that  they  relate  proselyte  baptism. 
They  relate  the  following  story: 

"David,  the  king,  in  digging  the  foundation,  found  a 
stone  laid  over  the  mouth  of  a  pit,  on  which  was  inscribed 
the  proper  name  of  God;  this  he  caused  to  be  taken  up  and 
placed  in  the  holy  of  holies.  And  the  wise  men,  fearing 
lest  some  over-curious  young  men  might  learn  this  name, 
and  by  the  power  of  it  cause  great  disturbances  in  the  world, 
made,  by  their  magic  art,  two  brazen  lions,  which  they  set  at 
the  door  of  the  holy  of  holies,  one  on  the  right  hand  and 
the  other  on  the  left;  that  if  any  should  enter  in,  and  learn 
this  secret  name,  the  lions,  as  he  came  out  again,  should,  by 
roaring,  strike  him  with  such  terror  and  confusion,  as  to 
cause  him  entirely  to  forget  the  name  he  had  learned.  [Now 
Jesus]  left  the  upper  Galilee,  and  came  privately  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  entering  into  the  temple,  learned  the  holy  letters, 
and  writ  the  incomprehensible  name  on  parchment;  and  first 
uttering  the  name  as  a  charm  that  he  might  not  feel  pain,  he 
cut  a  gash  in  his  flesh,  and  put  into  it  the  parchment  which 
contained  the  mysterious  name,  and  then  immediately  pro- 
nouncing the  name  again,  the  flesh  was  perfectly  healed  up 
as  at  first.     As  ho  oarua  out,  tho  brazan  lions  set  up  their 


HISTORY    OF   INFANT    BAPTISM.  19 

roar,  and  frightened  the  name  quite  out  of  his  mind.  Upon 
which  he  went  immediately  without  the  city,  and,  opening 
the  flesh,  took  out  the  hidden  parchment,  and  by  these 
means  again  learned  the  powerful  name.  After  this,  he 
went  into  Bethlehem  Judea,  the  place  of  his  nativity,  and 
began  to  cry  with  a  loud  voice,  &c.  *  *  *  *  Upon  this, 
some  asked  him,  saying,  Show  us  by  some  sign  or  wonder 
that  thou  art  God.  To  whom  he  answered,  saying,  Bring 
hither  a  dead  body  and  I  will  raise  it  to  life.  With  that 
they  fell  to  digging  up  a  grave  with  all  expedition;  and 
finding  nothing  but  dry  bones,  they  told  him,  We  have  found 
here  only  the  bones.  Well,  bring  them  here  into  the  midst, 
says  he.  And  when  they  had  brought  them,  he  fitted  every 
bone  to  its  place,  covered  them  with  skin,  and  flesh,  and 
nerves;  and  the  body  became  alive,  and  arose  and  stood  on 
its  feet;  and  the  whole  company  saw  the  wonder,  and  was 
amazed.  *  *  *  *  Bring  hither  a  leper,  says  he,  and  I 
will  heal  him.  And  when  they  brought  one  to  him,  he  in 
like  manner  healed  him  by  the  incomprehensible  name; 
which  when  they  that  were  with  him  saw,  they  fell  down 
before  him,  and  worshipped  him,  saying,  Thou  art  indeed  the. 
Son  of  God. 

"One  of  the  wise  men  proposed  to  the  rest,  if  it  may  be 
thought  fit,  let  one  of  us  also  learn  the  name,  and  thereby 
be  enabled  to  do  these  wonders  as  well  as  he.  The  Sanhed- 
rim approved  the  advice,  and  decreed,  that  whosoever  should 
learn  the  name,  and  thereby  discover  and  expose  Jesus,  he 
should  receive  a  double  reward  in  the  other  world.  Then 
one  of  the  wise  men,  whose  name  was  Judas,  stood  up,  and 
said,  I  will  learn  it.  *  *  *  *  Jesus  said,  Does  not 
Esaias  prophesy  of  me?  and  my  great  forefather  David  like- 
wise says  of  me,    Th*  Lord  $aid  unto  my  Lord,  die;    and 


20  HISTORY    OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

again,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  J  begotten  thee.  And 
now  I  will  ascend  to  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven,  and  I 
will  sit  at  his  right  hand ;  and  this  will  I  do  before  your 
faces,  but  thou,  Judas,  shalt  never  come  there.  Then  Jesus 
immediately  pronouncing  the  mighty  name,  a  sudden  wind 
arose  and  carried  him  into  the  air,  where  he  remained 
between  heaven  and  earth.  Judas,  in  like  manner  pro- 
nouncing the  name,  was  also  carried  up,  and  so  they  both 
flew  about  in  the  air,  to  the  great  amazement  of  all  specta- 
tors. But  Judas  again  pronouncing  the  name,  falls  on 
Jesus,  designing  to  cast  him  down  headlong;  while  Jesus 
also  pronouncing  the  name,  endeavored  to  cast  down  Judas, 
and  thus  they  continued  struggling  together,"  &c* 

But  enough:  these  silly  and  wicked  falsehoods  sufficiently 
evince  the  credit  due  to  the  testimony  of  such  writers. 
Whatman,  who  honors  the  institutions  of  the  gospel,  will' 
seriously  plead  to  have  attached  to  them  a  rite,  the  exis~ 
tence  of  which  rests  upon  the  testimony  of  such  witnesses  as 
these? 

But  some  of  the  most  eminent  Pedo-baptist  scholars  and 
divines  wholly  deny  that  proselyte  baptism  existed  in  the 
days  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Savior.  Professor  Stuart 
winds  up  an  elaborate  examination  of  this  subject  by  saying: 

"In  fine,  we  are  destitute  of  any  early  testimony  to  the 
practice  of  proselyte  baptism,  antecedently  to  the  Christian 
era.  The  original  institution  of  admitting  Jews  to  the 
covenant,  and  stangers  to  the  same,  prescribed  no  other  rite 
than  that  of  circumcision.  No  account  of  any  other  is  found 
in  the  Old  Testament;  none  in  the  Apocrypha,  New  Testa- 
ment, Targums  of  Onkelos,  Jonathan,  Joseph  the  Blind, 
or  in  the  work  of  any  other  Targumist,  excepting  pseudo- 
*  Reflections  on  Dr.  Wall,  pp.  25&-7. 


HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  21 

Jonathan,  whose  work  belongs  to  the  seventh  or  eighth  cen- 
tury. No  evidence  is  found  in  Philo,  Josephus,  or  any  of 
the  earlier  Christian  writers.  How  could  an  allusion  to  such 
a  rite  have  escaped  them  all,  if  it  were  as  common,  and  as 
much  required  by  usage,  as  circumcision?"* 

The  great  Dr.  Owen  says :  "  The  opinion  of  some  learned 
men  about  the  transferring  of  a  Jewish  baptismal  rite  (which, 
in  reality,  did  not  then  exist),  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  the 
use  of  his  disciples,  is  destitute  of  all  probability."  We 
might  quote  numerous  other  great  names;  but  these  may 
suffice.  It  is  enough  that  the  witnesses  relied  upon  lived 
too  many  centuries  from  the  times  of  our  Savior  to  testify  to 
the  existence  of  the  rite  then,  and  that  their  testimony  on 
any  subject  is  suspicious  and  can  not  impart  complete  satis- 
faction as  to  its  truth. 

We  have  demonstrated  that,  admitting  the  existence  of 
Jewish  proselyte  baptism,  it  could  establish  nothing  respect- 
ing Christian  baptism;  and  we  have  proved  also  that  such  a 
rite  did  not  exist  when  Christ  gave  his  commission  to  his 
apostles.  So  that,  any  way,  Infant  Baptism  can  derive  no  sup- 
port from  this  wicked  and  superstitious  custom.  Yet  without 
this  rite,  according  to  Dr.  Wall,  no  proof  can  be  derived 
from  the  New  Testament  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism;  and; 
with  it,  it  is  equally  clear,  not  a  shadow  of  foundation  is 
furnished  to  Infant  Baptism!  Thus  crumbles  the  main 
pillar  in  the  superstructure  of  the  great  champion  and  his- 
torian of  Pedo -baptism ! 

*  On  Christian  Baptism,  p.  69. 


22  HISTORY    OP    INFANT    BAPTISM, 


CHAPTER   III. 

Proselyte  baptism  does  not  explain  the  commission — The  baptism  of  John  and  of 
Jesus  unlike  proselyte  baptism — The  Jews  did  not  bring  their  infants  to  John  to 
be  baptized — Proselyte  baptism  did  not  require  the  Jows  to  baptize  their  infants — 
No  proof  that  the  Savior  borrowed  Mb  baptism  from  the  Jews,  and  the  position 
that  he  did,  proves  too  much — It  is  confessed  by  Dr.  Lightfoot  and  Dr.  Wall  that 
Infant  Baptism  is  derived  from  tradition,  and  confirmed  by  the  "silence"  of  the 
Bible — John  the  Baptist  baptized  no  infants — The  disciples,  before  the  great  com- 
mission, did  not  baptize  infants — And  yet  Dr.  Wall  relates  it  as  history  that  John 
and  the  disciples  did  baptize  infants ! 

It  has  been  shown  that  Jewish  proselyte  baptism  can  not 
furnish  any  aid  in  our  interpretation  of  the  commission  given 
by  our  Savior  to  disciple  and  baptize  the  nations;  that  the 
Jews  were  not  wont  to  baptize  proselytes  previous  to  and 
during  our  Lord's  incarnation;  and  that,  granting  the  exis- 
tence of  such  a  superstitious  custom,  it  is  wholly  incredible 
to  suppose  that  John  the  Baptist  and  the  apostles  borrowed 
Infant  Baptism  from  it,  seeing  they  wholly  disregarded  it 
by  constant  violation.  And  this  custom  aside,  where  else 
may  we  derive  aid  to  learn  the  import  of  the  commission? 
Dr.  Wall  answers: 

"The  baptism  indeed  of  the  nations  by  the  apostles  ought 
to  be  regulated  by  the  practice  of  John  and  of  Christ  him- 
self (who  by  the  hands  of  his  disciples  baptized  many  Jews), 
rather  than  by  any  preceding  custom  of  the  Jewish  nation ; 
if  we  had  any  good  ground  to  believe  that  they  did  in  the 
case  of  infants  differ  or  alter  anything  from  the  usual  way. 
But  we  have   no  kind  of  proof  that  they  made  any  such 

alteration."* 

*  Pagt  jr. 


HISTORY    OP   INFANT    BAPTISM.  23 

But  Dr.  Wall  wholly  failed  to  prove  the  existence  of  the 
custom.  And  the  baptism  of  John  and  of  Jesus  did  differ 
from  Jewish  proselyte  baptism.  By  the  latter,  no  Jew  was 
to  be  baptized:  John  baptized  only  Jews.  The  apostles,  by 
the  first  commission,  were  sent  only  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel,  and  under  that  commission  they  baptized 
only  Jews.  They,  therefore,  were  sent  expressly  to  do  what, 
by  the  law  of  proselyte  baptism,  could  not  be  done,  viz.,  to 
baptize  the  Jews.  John  baptized  a  great  many  Jews;  and 
Jesus,  by  his  disciples,  baptized  more  than  John.  How, 
then,  could  Br.  Wall  say,  that  "we  have  no  kind  of  proof 
that  they  made  any  alteration"  in  this  custom?  Bid  his 
prejudices  put  out  the  eyes  of  his  understanding?  But  we 
will  proceed  in  the  examination  of  his  reasoning: 

"There  is  no  express  mention  indeed  of  any  children  bap- 
tized by  him  [John] ;  but  to  those  that  consider  the  com- 
monness of  the  thing  (which  I  have  here  shown)  for  people 
that  came  to  be  baptized  to  bring  their  children  along  with 
them,  that  is  no  more  a  cause  to  think  that  he  baptized  no 
children,  than  one's  minding  that  in  the  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  there  is  some  five  hundred  years  together  without 
the  mention  of  any  child  circumcised,  is  a  cause  to  think 
that  none  were  circumcised  all  that  while."  * 

We  can  readily  conceive  it  possible  that  the  Jews  observed 
the  law  of  circumcision  during  the  five  hundred  years  alluded 
to.  God  had  commanded  them  to  do  so,  and  he  has  nowhere 
charged  them  with  disobedience  in  this  particular.  But 
what  analogy  is  there  between  such  a  supposition  and  the 
assertion  that  John,  who  was  sent  of  Grod  to  baptize,  bor- 
rowed his  practice  from  an  act  of  will-worship  —  a  wicked 
and  foolish  superstition?    Because  the  Jews  obeyed  a  divine 

•  Pp.  27,  28. 


24  HISTORY    OF    INFANT   BAPTISM. 

law,  does  it  follow  hence  that  the  harbinger  of  our  blessed 
Savior  observed  a  tradition  of  the  Jewish  elders?  But  we 
have  seen  he  did  not  observe  it;  that,  even  admitting  its 
existence,  he  habitually  violated  it.     But  Dr.  W.  proceeds: 

"And  whereas  it  is  said  of  the  multitudes  that  came  to 
John,  that  they  were  baptized  by  him  confessing  their  sins 
(which  confession  can  be  understood  only  of  the  grown  per- 
sons), that  is  no  more  than  would  be  said  in  the  case  of  a 
minister  of  the  Church  of  England — going  and  converting 
a  heathen  nation.  For  in  a  short  account  which  should  be 
sent  of  his  success,  it  would  be  said  that  multitudes  came 
and  were  baptized,  confessing  their  sins;  and  there  would 
need  no  mention  of  their  bringing  their  children  with  them, 
because  the  converting  of  the  grown  persons  was  the  princi- 
pal and  most  difficult  thing,  and  it  would  be  supposed  they 
brought  their  children  of  course."* 

Yes,  they  might  "suppose"  they  brought  their  children, 
but  they  could  find  no  ground  for  such  a  supposition  in  tho 
language  of  the  communication ;  for  it  is  admitted  that  the 
"confession  can  be  understood  only  of  the  grown  persons." 
The  supposition  would  be  mere  idle  conjecture,  or  at  least 
conjecture  wholly  independent  of  the  letter  of  the  minister. 
The  concession  of  Dr.  Wall  is  this :  that  the  New  Testament 
states  that  John  baptized  adults  only  —  that  he  baptized 
those  who  confessed  their  sins,  "which  confession  can  be 
understood  only  of  the  grown  persons;"  and  we  can  only 
"suppose"  he  baptized  infants  by  what  the  writers  of  Jewish 
fables  and  traditions  have  said  about  proselyte  baptism! 
Adult  Baptism  is  taught  in  the  sacred  Scriptures;  Infant 
Baptism  by  a  doubtful  tradition !  It  is  enough  for  our  pur- 
poses, that  it  is  here  confessed  that  we  can  not  even  "sup- 
*  Page  28. 


HISTORY   OF    INFANT   BAPTISM.  25 

pose,"  from  any  record  of  the  New  Testament,  that  John 
baptized  infants.  If  he  baptized  infants,  it  is  not  in  proof. 
God  did  not  command  him  to  baptize  them;  and  no  com- 
petent witness,  whether  Jewish,  Pagan,  or  Christian,  has 
ever  testified  that  he  did  baptize  them.  But  he  quotes  Dr. 
Lightfoot  as  saying: 

"I  do  not  believe  the  people  that  flocked  to  John's  bap- 
tism were  so  forgetful  of  the  manner  and  custom  of  the 
nation,  as  not  to  bring  their  little  children  along  with  them 
to  be  baptized."* 

But  it  was  not  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  bring  "their 
little  children  along  with  them  to  be  baptized."  By  the 
custom  of  proselyte  baptism,  no  Jew  or  his  children  were  to 
be  baptized.  Dr.  Lightfoot  and  Dr.  Wall  both  bear  testi- 
mony to  this.  It  was  one  from  among  the  heathen  prose- 
lyted to  the  Jewish  religion,  who,  according  to  their  showing, 
was  the  subject,  with  his  children,  of  tbis  traditional  rite. 
No  Jewish  writer  pretends  to  the  existence  of  any  custom 
requiring  the  baptism  of  the  Jews  and  their  children.  This 
argument,  therefore,  recoils.  The  Jews  would  not  have 
brought  their  little  children  with  them  to  be  baptized.  They 
had  no  such  custom.  To  have  done  so  would  have  violated 
their  traditions.  They  could  not  be  proselyted  to  their  own 
religion,  and,  consequently,  could  not  receive  proselyte  bap- 
tism. Had  John  proposed  to  administer  proselyte  baptism 
to  them  and  their  children,  it  would  have  been  the  grossest 
insult.  It  would  have  been  to  brand  them  with  heathenism. 
It  would  have  been  asking  them  to  nullify  their  tradition, 
and  to  submit  to  what  their  custom  emphatically  disallowed. 
Here  is  the  dilemma  of  Dr.  Wall  and  Dr.  Lightfoot:  If  pro- 
selyte baptism  did  not  exist  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel 
j  j  *  Page  28. 


26  HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

of  Jesus  Christ,  then  John  did  not  baptize  infants ;  and  if  it 
did  exist,  John  did  not  practice  it,  for  he  baptized  no  Gen- 
tiles, but  only  Jews,  who  could  not  be  baptized  according  to 
the  custom,  and,  therefore,  he  did  not  baptize  infants !  And 
what  is  true  of  John,  is  true  of  the  disciples  before  the 
resurrection  of  their  Lord!  Thus  these  great  doctors  are 
buried  in  the  ruins  of  their  own  favorite  fortification ! 

But  Dr.  Lightfoot  argues  still  further.  He  feels  that 
Infant  Baptism  can  not  stand  without  this  prop.     He  says: 

"If  baptism  and  baptizing  infants  had  been  a  new  thing, 
and  unheard  of  until  John  the  Baptist  came,  as  circumcision 
was  until  God  appointed  it  to  Abraham,  there  would  have 
been,  no  doubt,  as  express  command  for  baptizing  infants,  as 
there  was  for  circumcising  them.  But  when  the  baptizing 
of  infants  was  a  thing  commonly  known  and  used,  as  appears 
by  incontestible  evidence  from  their  writers,  there  need  not 
be  express  assertions  that  such  and  such  persons  were  to  be 
the  subjects  of  baptism,  when  it  was  as  well  known  before 
the  gospel  began  that  men,  women,  and  children  were  bap- 
tized, as  it  is  to  be  known  that  the  sun  is  up,  when,"  &c  * 

Dr.  Lightfoot  is  right  in  the  position  that  baptism,  if  not 
instituted  before,  must  have  been  instituted  at  the  time  of 
the  Savior,  by  express  command.  A  command  for  one  thing 
is  no  command  for  another  and  a  different  thing.  The  com- 
mand of  God  to  the  Jews  to  circumcise  their  infants  does 
not  afford  the  slightest  ground  to  infer  that  Jesus  com- 
manded his  ministers  to  baptize  infants.  Dr.  Lightfoot,  we 
repeat,  thus  far  reasons  like  one  learned  in  the  Scriptures. 
But  proselyte  baptism  was  never  commanded  —  it  was  never 
instituted  properly,  Dr.  Lightfoot  being  witness.  Besides, 
his  position  proves  too  much  for  his  purposes.  If  it  was  not 
*  Te.ge  29. 


HISTORY    OF   INFANT    BAPTISM.  27 

necessary  to  command  the  baptism  of  infants,  why  was  it 
necessary  to  command  the  baptism  of  any  one?  Why  would 
not  the  custom  avail  without  a  command  for  the  baptism  of 
adults  as  well  as  of  infants,  seeing  that  he  contends  that 
their  baptism  was  known  and  used  too?  And  if  there  was 
no  need  of  a  precept,  why  was  a  precept  given?  If  infants 
were  baptized  among  the  Jews,  so  were  men  and  women; 
and  if  the  former  may  be  baptized  by  the  custom  without 
precept,  so  may  the  latter.  There  was  no  more  necessity  for 
a  law  to  baptize  adults  than  to  baptize  infants. 

But  Dr.  Lightfoot  illustrates  his  position  further;  and  we 
continue  our  quotations,  that  this  support  of  Infant  Baptism 
may  appear  in  all  its  strength: 

"Suppose  there  should  at  this  time  come  out  a  proclama- 
tion in  these  words:  Every  one  on  the  Lord's  day  shall 
repair  to  the  public  assembly  in  the  church.  That  man 
would  dote,  who  should  in  times  to  come  conclude  that  there 
were  no  prayers,  sermons,  psalms,  &c,  in  the  public  assem- 
blies on  the  Lord's  day,  for  this  reason,  because  there  was 
no  mention  of  them  in  this  proclamation.  For  the  pro- 
clamation ordered  the  keeping  of  the  Lord's  day  in  the  pub- 
lic assemblies  in  general;  and  there  was  no  need  that  men- 
tion should  be  made  of  the  particular  kinds  of  divine  worship 
there  to  be  used,  since  they  were  both  before  and  at  the  time 
of  the  said  proclamation  known  to  every  body,  and  in  com- 
mon use."* 

Very  true;  and  he  would  equally  dote,  who  should  con- 
tend that  a  proclamation  simply  requiring  every  one  to  repair 
to  the  public  assembly  in  the  church,  enjoined  and  required 
"prayers,  sermons,  psalms,"  &c.  A  proclamation  to  observe 
the  Sabbath  is  not  a  proclamation  for  singing  psalms.    This, 

*  Pp.  29,  30. 


28  HISTORY   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

if  done  at  all,  must  be  done  without  authority  from  the  pro- 
clamation. So  the  Savior's  proclamation  to  baptize  disciples 
furnishes  no  authority  for  the  baptism  of  infants.  Autho- 
rity for  that  must  be  derived  elsewhere;  and,  according  to 
Dr.  Lightfoot,  it  is  derived  from  a  stale  Jewish  tradition ;  for 
he  thus  applies  the  case  supposed: 

"Just  so  the  case  stood  as  to  baptism.  Christ  ordered  it 
to  be  for  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament,  by  which  all 
should  be  admitted  to  the  profession  of  the  gospel,  as  they 
were  formerly  to  proselytism  in  the  Jews'  religion.  The 
particular  circumstances  of  it,  as  the  manner  of  baptizing, 
the  age  of  receiving  it,  which  sex  was  capable  of  it,  &o.,  had 
no  need  of  being  regulated  or  set  down,  because  they  were 
known  to  every  body  by  common  usage."* 

It  is  not  in  proof  that  Christ  ordered  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism  to  be  for  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament.  Dr. 
Lightfoot  begs  the  question.  So  important  a  fact  as  this 
can  not  be  assumed — it  ought  and  must  be  proved.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  foundation  for  it  in  any  ancient  writer, 
Jewish  or  Christian,  sacred  or  profane.  Besides,  as  we  have 
seen  already,  there  is  no  similarity  between  the  two  rites,  for 
the  Lord  commanded  his  disciples  to  do  what  proselyte  bap- 
tism forbid  to  be  done.  And  the  apostolic  commission  does 
prescribe  the  character  of  persons  to  be  baptized.  They  are 
disciples:  make  disciples,  baptizing  them,  are  the  words  of 
the  law.     But  let  us  hear  Dr.  Lightfoot  once  more : 

"It  was  therefore  necessary,  on  the  other  side,  that  thero 
should  have  been  an  express  and  plain  order  that  infants 
and  little  children  should  not  be  baptized,  if  our  Savior 
meant  that  they  should  not.  For  since  it  was  ordinary  in 
all  ages  before  to  have  infants  baptized,  if  Christ  would  have 
*  Page  30. 


HISTORY   OF   INFANT    BAPTISM.  29 

had  that  usage  to  be  abolished,  he  would  have  expressly  for- 
bidden it.  So  that  his  and  the  Scripture's  silence  in  this 
matter  does  confirm  and  establish  Infant  Baptism  for- 
ever."* 

An  ordinance  of  the  New  Testament  confirmed  and  estab- 
lished by  the  silence  of  the  Savior  and  the  Scriptures  I  Such 
sophistry  is  too  gross  to  be  expected  from  so  great  a  man  as 
Dr.  Lightfoot.  But  his  cause  betrayed  him.  He  loved  Infant 
Baptism  with  intense  affection,  and  hence  clung  to  it  to  the 
injury  of  his  powers  of  perception.  On  any  other  subject, 
he  would  have  shrunk  appalled  at  the  monstrous  position, 
that  all  the  customs  of  the  Jews  were  sanctioned  by  the 
Savior,  except  those  he  expressly  and  plainly  abolished,  and 
that  they  were  perpetuated  and  enjoined  by  his  silence! 
And  yet  this  is  the  plain  import  of  the  last  passage  quoted. 
If  the  silence  of  Scripture  ratifies  one  Jewish  custom,  it  may 
ratify  all;  and  it  is  our  duty  forthwith  to  enter  upon  an 
investigation  of  the  Jewish  traditions  and  customs  in  exis- 
tence during  the  days  of  the  Savior's  incarnation,  and  of 
which  he  is  silent,  for  they  are  as  much  confirmed  and  estab- 
lished of  heaven  as  the  baptism  of  infants.  There  were 
thousands  of  rites  and  customs  of  the  Jews  of  which  the 
Scriptures  make  no  mention,  and  which,  according  to  this 
logic,  it  is  our  duty  to  regard  as  sacred  and  divine !  We  can 
bring  no  "express  and  plain  order"  of  the  Savior  against 
them,  therefore,  like  Infant  Baptism,  they  are  confirmed  and 
established  through  all  generations  of  the  gospel  church  by 
the  awful  voice  of  his  "silence!!"  Dr.  Lightfoot,  on  any 
other  subject,  would  have  taken  a  different  position.  He 
would  have  asserted  the  obvious  and  common  sense  prin- 
ciple, that  we  should  receive  as  sacred  no  Jewish  customs 
*  Page  30. 


30  HISTORY   OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

except  those  expressly  sanctioned  and  ordered  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

It  is  clear,  then,  "that  the  baptism  of  the  nations  by  the 
apostles  ought  to  be  regulated  by  the  practice  of  John  and 
of  Christ  himself  (who  by  the  hands  of  his  disciples  baptized 
many  Jews),  rather  than  by  any  preceding  custom  of  the 
Jewish  nation;  because  we  have  good  grounds  to  believe 
that  if  the  Jewish  nation  had  any  custom  of  baptism  at  all, 
John  and  the  Savior  wholly  disregarded  it,  practising  alto- 
gether a  different  baptism."  Thus  Dr.  Wall  advises;  and  to 
the  examination  of  baptism  as  instituted  by  divine  authority 
and  existing  before  the  commission  was  given,  we  now  turn 
our  attention.  We  wish  to  ascertain  the  state  of  baptism  as 
it  existed  by  the  appointment  of  heaven  previous  to  the  com- 
mand, "Go,  and  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  under 
which  all  gospel  ministers  now  profess  to  act. 

John  the  Baptist  was  sent  of  God  to  baptize.  His  bap- 
tism, unlike  the  traditions  of  the  Jews,  was  of  heaven  and 
not  of  men.  He  came  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elijah,  and 
was  sent  to  "turn  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children, 
and  the  disobedient  to  the  wisdom  of  the  just:  to  make 
ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord."  His  baptism  was 
unto  repentance.  He  baptized  the  pepple,  "confessing  their 
sins."  He  required  that  they  should  bring  forth  fruits  meet 
for  repentance.  He  baptized  professed  believers  —  "John 
verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto 
the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him  who  should  come 
after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus."  Acts  xix.  4.  He  bap- 
tized professed  disciples  —  "When  therefore  the  Lord  knew 
how  the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  bap- 
tized more  disciples  than  John,"  (John  iv.  1)  —  that  is, 
than  John  made  and  baptized.      So  he  made  disciples  and 


HISTORY    OF   INFANT    BAPTISM.  31 

baptized  thein.  He  baptized  no  infants,  unless  he  had  a 
baptism  not  "unto  repentance,"  which  did  not  require  a  con- 
fession of  sins ;  unless  he  baptized  some  who  were  not  made 
disciples,  and  without  saying  to  them,  they  should  believe 
on  him  who  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus. 
But  he  had  but  one  baptism.  The  Scriptures  no  where 
intimate  that  he  baptized  more  than  one  class  of  subjects. 
If  he  baptized  infants,  the  Scriptures  have  failed  to  leave 
an  intimation  of  the  kind,  as  is  confessed  on  all  hands. 
He  could  not  have  baptized  them  by  a  baptism  unto  repen- 
tance. To  have  baptized  them  at  all,  he  must  have  had 
another  baptism,  which  he  had  not,  so  far  as  we  have  any 
testimony  to  conduct  us  to  conclusions.  So  far  as  the 
Bible,  then,  furnishes  us  any  light  upon  the  subject,  we 
may  set  it  down  as  undenied,  that  John  baptized  no  infants. 
Dr.  Wall  and  Dr.  Lightfoot  pretend  to  no  authority  from 
the  Bible  in  support  of  their  position  that  John  baptized 
infants,  except  its  "silence."  To  them  the  "silence"  of  the 
Savior  and  the  Scriptures  is  the  voice  of  God  in  thunder- 
tones  engrafting  upon  the  institutions  of  the  gospel  a  human 
invention. 

The  apostles,  previous  to  their  receiving  the  commission, 
were  sent  by  the  Savior  to  preach  the  gospel  and  to  baptize. 
In  this  work  they  had  successfully  and  extensively  engaged 
among  the  Jews  to  whom  they  were  sent.  Their  labors 
were  more  blessed  than  even  those  of  the  zealous  and 
devoted  Baptist:  "When  therefore  the  Lord  knew  how  the 
Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more 
disciples  than  John  (though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but 
his  disciples),  he  left  Judea,  and  departed  again  into  Gali- 
lee." John  iv.  1-3.  The  baptism  administered  by  the  dis- 
ciples under  the  first  commission,  it  is  evident  from  this 


32  HISTORY   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

passage,  corresponded,  in  its  main  features,  to  the  baptism 
administered  by  John.  Like  him,  they  made  disciples  and 
baptized  them.  They  did  not  baptize  any  other  class  of 
subjects,  so  far  as  we  can  learn  from  the  divine  record;  and 
we  have  no  other  guide  to  direct  our  investigations.  If  we 
leave  this,  and  venture  upon  a  sea  of  conjecture,  we  may  as 
legitimately  infer  that  they  baptized  bells  or  dead  persons, 
as  that  they  baptized  infants.  When  we  desert  the  light  of 
the  Scriptures,  in  a  search  of  this  nature,  we  are  enveloped 
in  darkness  as  fearful  as  that  which  prevailed  in  that  long 
night  of  Egypt  when  no  man  knew  his  brother — we  ven- 
ture forth  on  a  tempestuous  ocean  without  a  bottom  or  a 
shore.  We  know  from  the  Scriptures  that  they  baptized 
disciples;  but  we  can  not  know  that  they  baptized  any  others, 
for  there  is  no  proof,  human  or  divine,  that  they  did. 

But  Dr.  Wall,  in  writing  the  history  of  Infant  Baptism, 
gravely  takes  it  for  granted  that  John,  and  Jesus,  by  his 
disciples,  baptized  thousands  of  infants  I  He  tells  us  that 
the  Jews  who  nocked  to  John's  baptism  at  Jordan  and  at 
Enon  must  have  brought  their  young  children  with  them  to 
be  baptized;  and  that  they  brought  them  also  to  the  dis- 
ciples for  the  same  purpose !  But  he  quotes  no  author  that 
testifies  to  the  fact.  Even  the  Jewish  rabbis,  whom  he 
presses  into  his  service,  fail  him  as  witnesses  on  this  point. 
He  draws  on  his  imagination  for  his  facts,  and,  in  the  face 
of  the  plain  and  positive  declarations  of  Scripture,  asserts 
that  Infant  Baptism  was  the  common  practice  of  John  and 
of  the  blessed  Savior!  This  is  the  History  of  Infant 
Baptism!  It  is  sheer  fiction.  Its  foundation  is  vapor.  It 
is  built  of  dreams. 

We  have  now  seen  the  state  of  baptism,  as  it  existed 
among  those  divinely  authorized  to  administer  it,  up  to  the 


HISTORY    OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  33 

giving  of  the  great  commission.  In  our  next  chapter  we 
shall  commence  at  that  point,  and  endeavor  to  ascertain 
from  it  whether  it  furnishes  any  authority  for  baptizing 
infants  in  the  awful  and  solemn  names  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 


34  HISTORY    OP   INFANT   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

The  apostolic  commission — It  is  not  to  be  explained  by  chwuucision — No  allusion  to 
infants  in  the  commission — It  commands  the  baptism  of  disciples  or  believers  only 
— It  requires  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  which  is  applicable  only  to  dis- 
ciples— It  requires  the  baptized  to  be  taught  the  commandments  of  Jesus — It  makes 
the  same  requisition  of  all — All  nations  to  be  made  disciples — "  To  make  disciples  " 
can  not  include  infants — Not  made  disciples  by  baptism — Infant  damnation  not  to 
be  inferred — Even  infant  church-membership  does  not  prove  Infant  Baptism — The 
apostles  baptized  according  to  the  commission — Lydia's  household — The  jailor's 
household — Household  of  Crispus — Of  Stephanus — No  Infant  Baptism  in  the  New 
Testament. 

Having  shown  that  there  was  no  such  custom  as  Infant 
Baptism  among  the  Jews  previous  to  the  giving  of  the 
apostolic  commission,  and  that  neither  John  the  Baptist,  nor 
Jesus,  by  his  disciples,  baptized  any  infants,  we  now  enter 
upon  the  examination  of  the  commission  itself,  and  the  prac- 
tice of  the  apostles  under  it.  From  what  we  have  already 
said,  it  must  be  evident  to  all,  that  we  have  a  right  to 
demand,  according  to  the  concessions  of  Dr.  Lightfoot  and 
Dr.  Wall,  a  law  as  expressly  enjoining  the  baptism,  as  of  old 
was  given  for  the  circumcision,  of  infants.  But  we  care  not 
to  avail  ourselves  of  the  concession.  We  do  not  need  it. 
We  plant  ourselves  upon  the  great  commission,  and  main- 
tain that  it  does  not  authorize  the  baptism  of  infants,  and, 
therefore,  that  no  minister  can  by  it  baptize  an  infant.  The 
commission  of  the  Savior  to  his  apostles  reads  thus:  "All 

POWER  IS  GIVEN  UNTO  ME  IN  HEAVEN  AND  IN  EARTH :  Go  YE, 
THEREFORE,  AND  TEACH  ALL  NATIONS,  BAPTIZING  THEM  IN 
THE  NAME   OF   THE    FATHER,  AND  OF   THE  SON,  AND  OF   THE 

Hr  7  Ghost;   teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 


HISTORY    OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  35 

WHATSOEVER  I  HAVE  COMMANDED  YOU;  AND  LO,  I  AM 
WITH    YOU   ALWAYS,  EVEN    UNTO   THE    END    OF   THE    WORLD. 

Amen."  Mat.  xxviii.  18-20.  The  word  "teach,"  occurring 
in  the  first  instance  above,  is  translated  from  a  word  (mathe- 
teuo)  which  signifies  to  make  disciples  or  scholars.  This  is 
universally  conceded.  The  command  is,  then,  "make  dis- 
ciples, baptizing  them."  Those  to  be  baptized,  according  to 
this  commission,  are  disciples,  persons  taught  in  the  school  of 
Christ,  believers.  This  is  further  evident  from  the  substance 
of  the  commission  as  recorded  by  Mark:  "Go  ye  into  all 

THE  WORLD,  AND  PREACH  THE  GOSPEL  TO  EVERY  CREATURE : 
HE  THAT  BELIEVETH  AND  IS  BAPTIZED,  SHALL  BE  SAVED; 
BUT  HE    THAT    BELIEVETH   NOT,  SHALL   BE   DAMNED."    Mark 

xvi.  15,  16. 

Dr.  Wall  and  Dr.  Lightfoot,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  pre- 
tend that  the  apostolic  commission  authorizes  Infant  Bap- 
tism. Their  dependence  for  authority  was  upon  a  Jewish 
tradition.  This  they  supposed  would  shed  light  upon  the 
design  of  the  commission;  but  we  have  proved  that  this 
supposition  has  no  foundation.  Other  Pedo-baptists  appeal 
to  the  law  of  circumcision,  and  contend  that  inasmuch  as  by 
divine  law,  the  male  infants  of  the  Jews  were  circumcised, 
therefore  all  the  infants  of  believing  parents  ought  to  be 
baptized.  But  the  premises  and  conclusions  are  too  far 
asunder  for  any  rational  purpose.  The  law  requiring  the 
circumcision  of  infants  of  eight  days  old,  and  the  law 
requiring  the  baptism  of  disciples  or  believers,  can  never,  by 
any  legerdemain  of  logic  or  learning,  be  converted  into  one 
and  the  same  law.  And  the  very  fact  that  the  Pedo-baptists 
alluded  to,  appeal  to  the  law  of  circumcision,  given  nineteen 
centuries  before  the  commission,  is  demonstration  as  strong 
as  text  of  Holy  Writ,  that  they  know  that  there  is  no  war- 


3£  HISTORY   OP   INTANT    BAPTISM. 

rant  for  Infant  Baptism  in  the  commission.  If  they  could 
find  their  doctrine  in  the  last  instructions  of  the  Savior  to 
his  disciples,  they  would  never  appeal  to  the  language  of 
God  to  Abraham  nineteen  hundred  years  before  that  time. 
They  plead  the  law  of  circumcision,  and  not  the  apostolic  com- 
mission, in- support  of  their  practice.  This  is  to  surrender  the 
commission.  This  is  to  concede  all  that  we  contend  for — that 
the  commission  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  infants.  We 
could  grant  Infant  Baptism  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  and 
still  successfully  maintain  that  this  would  be  another  bap- 
tism, wholly  distinct  from  that  commanded  by  the  commis- 
sion; and  that  the  subjects  of  it,  when  they  became  believers 
or  disciples,  would  be  called  upon,  by  their  solemn  obligations 
to  the  head  of  the  church,  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity.  Their  being  baptized  by  a  law  binding  by  reason 
of  descent,  would  not  release  them  from  a  law  binding  by 
reason  of  faith  and  discipleship.  To  baptize  according  to 
the  law  of  circumcision,  would  not  be  the  same  as  to  baptize 
according  to  the  law  of  the  Savior  in  the  commission.  The 
former  would  be  administered  by  virtue  of  a  natural  birth, 
of  descent  simply  from  an  earthly  parent;  the  latter,  by  vir- 
tue of  a  birth  from  above,  and  of  relationship  to  the  great 
head  of  the  church.  The  commission  commands  the  baptism 
of  believers  or  disciples;  now  this  can  not  be  nullified  by 
baptism  of  infants.  He  that  is  baptized  in  infancy  can  not 
obey  this  law  until  he  is  baptized  as  a  disciple.  This  is  as 
plain  as  the  sun  in  the  heavens.  Until  this  commission  be 
repealed,  the  command  of  the  Son  of  Grod  to  every  disciple 
is,  Be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  So  if  we  were  to  grant  Infant  Baptism 
by  the  law  of  circumcision,  still  our  opponents  would  gain 
nothing  to  their  cause;  for  by  it  they  can  never  escape  the 


HISTORY    OF    INFAN1    BAPTISM.  37 

solemn  obligation  resting  upon  every  disciple  of  Jesus, 
imposed  by  his  last  and  solemn  injunction,  to  be  baptized  in 
his  name.  Infant  Baptism  is  not  believer  baptism,  and  can 
never  supersede  it. 

Who  can  look  at  the  commission,  and  imagine  for  a 
moment  that  it  has  the  slightest  allusion  to  infants?  We 
care  not  for  circumcision,  nor  Jewish  proselyte  baptism,  nor 
any  thing  else  that  the  minds  of  men  may  fancy  to  have 
existed  at  the  time  among  the  Jews ;  we  defy  the  ingenuity 
of  men  and  devils  to  torture  the  slightest  allusion  to  infanta 
out  of  the  apostolic  commission.  The  eleven  disciples  to 
whom  it  was  addressed  could  never  have  understood  him  to 
refer  to  infants.  They  had  never  seen  the  Jews  baptize  any 
infants;  for,  as  we  have  demonstrated,  the  Jews  had  no  such 
custom.  They  never  saw  John  the  Baptist  baptize  an  infant, 
for  his  baptism  was  unto  repentance;  and  he  said  to  those 
he  baptized,  that  they  should  believe  on  him  that  should 
come  after  him  —  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.  He  made  dis- 
ciples and  baptized  them.  They  had,  by  the  command  of  the 
Savior,  preached  the  gospel  to  the  Jews ;  and  although  they 
baptized  great  multitudes,  yet  they  baptized  no  infants. 
They  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John.  And 
their  Lord  did  not  change  the  subjects  of  baptism  in  his  last 
instructions  to  them;  but  he  sent  them  into  all  the  world  to 
do  what  they  had  hitherto  done  in  the  narrow  precincts  of 
Palestine,  viz.,  to  MAKE  disciples,  baptizing  them.  It  is 
impossible,  then,  that  they  could  understand  him  to  have 
reference  to  infants  —  that  they  could  imagine  that  he  meant 
to  instruct  them  to  baptize  parents  because  they  believed, 
and  infants  because  they  believed  not — that  parents  were  to 
be  taken  into  the  kingdom  voluntarily,  and  their  infants  by 
stratagem. 


38  HISTORY    OF    INFAJST   BAPTISM. 

The  commission  not  only  commands  that  they  should  be 
made  disciples,  that  they  should  be  believers  before  baptism, 
but  that  they  should  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Prof.  Stuart  says: 
"  The  word  baptize  may  be  followed  by  a  person  or  a  thing 
(doctrine)  which  has  eis  before  it.  In  the  first  case,  when  it  is 
followed  by  a  person,  it  means,  'by  the  sacred  rite  of  baptism 
to  bind  one's  self  to  be  a  disciple  or  follower  of  a  person,  to 
receive  or  obey  his  doctrines  or  laws' — e.  g.,  1  Cor.  x.  2, 
'And  were  baptized  into  (ets)  Moses;'  Gal.  iii.  27,  'For  as 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  (eis)  Christ,  having 
put  on  Christ;'  Rom.  vi.  3,  'Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of 
us  as  were  baptized  into  (eis)  Christ,  were  baptized  into  (eis) 
his  death;'  1  Cor.  i.  13,  'Were  ye  baptized  into  (ets)  the 
name  of  Paul;'  verses  14,  15,  'I  thank  God  that  I  baptized 
none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gaius,  lest  any  should  say  I 
baptized  into  (eis)  mine  own  name.'  Or  it  means,  to  acknow- 
ledge him  as  Sovereign,  Lord,  and  Sanctifier  —  e.  p.,  Mat. 
xxviii.  19,  'Baptizing  them  into  (ets)  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost; '  Acts  viii.  16,  'Only 
they  were  baptized  into  (eis)  the  name  of  the  Lord;'  Acts 
xix.  5,  '  When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  into  (eis) 
the  name  of  the  Lord.'"*  And  so  Greenfield,  in  his  lexicon 
of  the  New  Testament:  "To  be  baptized  to  any  one,  [is]  to 
bind  one's  self  to  honor,  obey,  and  follow  any  one."  To  the 
same  point  we  might  quote  Robinson,  Schleusner,  and  a  host 
of  other  eminent  lexicographers  and  critics;  but  let  these 
suffice,  since,  so  far  as  we  know,  this  interpretation  is  not 
disputed.  But  infants  can  not  be  baptized  into  the  name  of 
the  Lord.  They  can  not  bind  thentselves  to  receive  and 
obey  his  doctrines  and  laws.  They  can  not  profess  any 
*  Letter  to  Dr.  FiBhback. 


HISTORY    OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  39 

thing,  and  of  course  are  never  baptized  upon  a  profession  of 
obedience  to  the  will  of  God.  But  this  is  required  by  the 
express  letter  of  the  commission;  then  by  the  commission 
they  can  not  be  baptized.  You  might,  with  as  much  pro- 
priety, baptize  a  bell,  or  an  image  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  into 
the  name  of  the  Trinity!  Who  has  required  it  at  your 
hands? 

But  it  is  further  evident  that  the  commission  has  no  allu- 
sion to  infants,  from  the  fact,  that  the  baptized  are  to  be 
taught  to  observe  whatsoever  Christ  has  commanded.  This 
supposes  that  the  subjects  of  the  commission  are  capable  of 
being  instructed  into  the  obedience  of  all  the  ordinances  of 
the  church  militant.  Of  course  this  can  not  allude  to 
infants.  They  are  incompetent  to  receive  any  such  instruc- 
tion. In  no  way,  then,  can  infants  be  comprehended  in  the 
commission. 

There  can  be  no  excuse  for  misunderstanding  this  com- 
mission. No  language  can  be  more  plain  —  none  less  in- 
vested with  ambiguity.  He  that  runs  may  read.  It  enjoins 
the  baptism  of  disciples  or  believers.  It  knows  no  others. 
No  minister  with  this  commission  in  his  hands  would  bap- 
tize an  idolater  or  an  unbeliever.  He  would  require  him  to 
renounce  idolatry  and  believe  in  Jesus.  And  what  the 
commission  requires  of  one,  it  requires  of  all.  It  has  refer- 
ence to  character — to  disciples  or  believers — and  not  to  age, 
or  sex,  or  color.  If,  by  the  commission,  you  may  baptize  an 
infant  that  is  not  a  disciple  and  not  a  believer,  you  may, 
with  the  same  propriety,  baptize  an  adult  that  is  not  a  dis- 
ciple and  not  a  believer.  What  the  commission  requires  of 
one,  it  requires  of  all.  It  knows  no  distinction,  and  makes 
no  difference.  It  either  requires  faith  and  discipleship  abso- 
lutely, or  it  does  not.     If  it  docs,  then  it  furnishes  no  war- 


40  HISTORY   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

rant  for  Infant  Baptism,  for  infants  can  not  believe,  they 
can  not  be  made  disciples.  If  it  does  not,  then  adults  are  not 
required  to  profess  faith,  or  to  be  disciples.  This  is  self- 
evident,  and  defies  every  effort  at  evasion. 

But  some  have  said  that  the  command  extends  to  all 
nations:  and  are  not  infants,  it  is  asked,  included  in  that 
phrase?  Certainly  they  are;  and  so  are  drunkards,  and 
liars,  and  swearers,  and  'whoremongers,  and  infidels,  and 
atheists,  and  idolaters,  and  every  wicked  and  abominable 
person  upon  the  face  of  the  whole  earth;  and  if  the  phrase 
"all  nations,"  includes  infants,  so  it  does  the  others,  and 
there  is  just  the  same  warrant  for  the  baptism  of  the  one  as 
the  other  —  that  is,  no  warrant  at  all!  But  such  objectors 
have  paid  very  little  attention  to  the  language  of  the  commis- 
sion. If  the  command  is  to  baptize  all  nations,  it  is  also  to 
make  disciples  of  all  nations,  and  to  teach  all  nations  to 
observe  the  ordinances  of  Christ.  They  must  be  made  dis- 
ciples, then  baptized,  and  then  taught  the  other  duties  of 
religion.  This  is  the  divine  order.  Man  has  no  authority 
to  change  it.  It  is  as  permanent  as  the  heavens.  And  by 
it,  neither  infants  nor  infidels  can  be  baptized,  but  disciples 
or  believers  only.  The  objection  vanishes  as  the  mists  of 
the  morning  before  the  sun  in  his  strength. 

But  Dr.  Wall  intimates,  but  with  great  hesitation,  as  if 
conscious  of  treading  upon  enchanted  ground,  that  the  com- 
mission, in  commanding  the  baptism  of  disciples  or  "prose- 
lytes" intended  infants  as  well  as  adults;  for  the  Jews,  he 
says,  were  wont  to  denominate  their  baptized  infants  prose- 
lytes. Were  this  even  so  among  the  Jews  (which,  however, 
we  have  shown  to  be  wholly  destitute  of  proof),  still  we 
would  not  recede  one  inch  from  our  position.  Matheteuo, 
"to  make  disciples,"  never  can  imply  infants.     Every  lexi- 


HISTORY    OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  41 

con  upon  earth  will  tell  you  that  it  necessarily  involves 
instruction,  and  presupposes  one  that  can  be  taught.  The 
connection  in  which  it  stands,  as  already  proved,  enables  the 
plainest  Christian,  with  the  Bible  in  his  hand,  to  put  to 
silence  and  to  shame  the  most  giant  defenders  of  the  oppo- 
site opinion.  The  term  disciple,  every  where  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  used  in  a  sense  utterly  incompatible  with 
infants.  Any  one  can  test  this  by  means  of  a  concordance 
and  the  common  version  of  the  Scriptures.  It  shocks  all 
propriety  of  speech  and  all  common  sense,  to  call  an  uncon- 
scious babe  a  disciple  or  learner.  It  would  be  folly  to  waste 
time  in  exposing  a  position  so  monstrous  and  absurd.  We 
would  feel  about  as  well  employed  in  refuting  the  papal 
legends  respecting  the  exploits  of  St.  Anthony  with  the 
fishes,  or  of  St.  Patrick  with  the  frogs  and  toads  of  Ireland! 
The  criticism  is  crushed  by  the  weight  of  its  own  absurdity. 
Dr.  Wall  argues,  that  the  Jews  made  infants  disciples  or 
proselytes  by  baptizing  them;  and  hence  he  and  others  have 
argued  that  infants  may  be  included  in  the  commission, 
since  it  enjoins  that  disciples  be  made  by  baptizing  them. 
This  means  that  a  person  can  be  made  a  believer  by  baptizing 
him ;  for  a  believer  and  a  disciple  are  the  same  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Aye,  much  more:  this  criticism  teaches  that  an 
infant  may  be  made  a  believer  in  Jesus,  a  disciple  of  the 
Lord,  by  baptism.  Now,  it  is  possible  that  the  superstitious 
Jews  were  capable  of  perpetrating  such  supreme  nonsense  as 
this;  but  we  protest  against  its  being  imputed  to  the  Savior. 
He  never  uttered  such  puerile  nonsense.  But  if  persons  are 
made  believers  or  disciples  by  baptizing,  why  require  faith 
of  adults  in  order  to  their  admission  to  the  ordinance,  seeing 
they  would  receive  faith  by  being  baptized?  And  let  us 
carry  out  the  doctrine;  and  fcince  the  thine  may  be  done,  let 


42  HISTORY    OF    INFANT   BAPTISM. 

us  look  at  the  results  of  its  operation :  an  infidel,  by  being 
baptized,  becomes  a  believer  in  Jesus!  Idolaters  and  Jews, 
as  was  done  by  order  of  some  of  the  Roman  emperors  and 
of  Charlemagne,  being  taken  by  force  and  baptized,  become 
disciples!  Those  infants  in  Germany  who,  not  long  since, 
were  torn  from  the  arms  of  their  Baptist  parents,  and  bap- 
tized by  order  of  the  civil  magistrate,  were  made  disciples  of 
Christ!  The  untold  millions  of  the  unconverted  now  living 
and  that  have  lived,  who  were  baptized  in  infancy,  were  all 
made,  in  their  baptism,  disciples  or  believers !  And  a  Turk, 
a  worshipper  of  Juggernaut,  or  of  Boodh,  would  become  a 
disciple  by  simply  baptizing  him!  We  should  really  be 
ashamed  to  look  one  of  our  intelligent  readers  in  the  face, 
if  we  were  seriously  to  set  about  a  refutation  of  such  a  criti- 
cism. It  must  work  out  its  own  destruction  in  every  well 
regulated  mind.  It  is  conclusive  proof  that  Infant  Baptism 
is  worse  than  old  wives'  fables,  when  it  is  compelled  to  seek 
such  defences,  and  resort  to  such  subterfuges.  If  infants 
are  made  disciples  by  baptizing,  they  are  made  disciples  also 
by  teaching;  for  the  command  is,  baptizing  them,  teaching 
them.  No  one  can  be  a  disciple  without  teaching.  An 
untaught  disciple  is  a  contradiction.  An  adult,  as  all  agree, 
must  be  a  believer  before  baptism ;  and  if  a  believer,  then  a 
disciple,  for  a  believer  who  is  not  a  disciple  can  not  exist. 
And  what  is  true  of  adults,  is  true  of  all  by  the  commission. 
This  we  have  abundantly  proved.  Let  us  look,  then,  at  the 
absurdity  of  this  criticism  from  another  point.  It  is  uni- 
versally conceded  that  an  adult  should  be  a  believer  before 
baptism ;  and  yet  he  is  not  a  disciple  until  baptized !  That 
is,  he  is  a  believing  non-disciple!!  A  singular  species  in  the 
moral  kingdom !  But  a  baptized  infant  is  a  disciple  but  not 
a  believer;  and  this  introduces  to  our  admiring  eyes  another 


HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  43 

moral  monstrosity — a  disciple  who  believes  not!  Oh,  the 
follies  of  Infant  Baptism !     Your  name  is  legion ! 

Again  it  is  said,  that  if  infants,  because  they  are  not 
believers,  must  not  be  baptized,  then  it  follows,  that  because 
they  believe  not,  they  must  be  damned!  That  if  want  of 
faith  debars  them  from  baptism,  it  debars  them  from  salva- 
tion! But  these  are  false  conclusions  from  our  premises. 
Nothing  of  the  sort  follows  from  what  we  have  said.  The 
commission  knows  nothing  of  infants.  As  it  says  nothing 
about  them,  of  course  it  teaches  nothing  respecting  their 
salvation,  their  damnation,  or  their  baptism.  Who  ever 
quoted  the  commission  to  prove  infant  salvation?  And  how 
could  such  a  doctrine  be  even  inferred  from  it,  seeing  that  it 
says  nothing  whatever  about  them?  But  if  infants  are  in 
the  commission,  then  we  say,  they  must  believe,  or  be  lost; 
for  what  it  says  to  one,  it  says  to  all  its  subjects,  "He  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  But  infants  can  not  be  put 
into  the  commission  without  interpolation  of  God's  word. 
They  are,  therefore,  neither  saved  nor  condemned  by  the 
commission.  With  the  same  propriety  we  might  have  a  bell 
presented  to  us  for  baptism,  and  be  told,  if  you  deny  it  bap- 
tism by  the  commission,  then  you  must  hold  that  bells  are 
lost;  and  whoever  heard  of  the  damnation  of  a  bell?  (!)  But 
we  can  not  be  shaken  by  such  appeals.  The  commission 
says  nothing  of  bells  or  of  infants.  It  knows  only  disciples 
or  believers. 

But  it  is  contended  by  some  of  the  advocates  of  Pedo-bap- 
tism,  that  infants  were  in  the  church  before  the  Savior's  incar- 
nation, and  that  the  commission  does  not  put  them  out  of  the 
church!  Granting  this  to  be  so,  still  our  position  is  un- 
touched. We  contend  that  the  commission  does  not  put 
them  in  the  church — that  it  does  not  authorize  their  bap- 


44  HISTORY    OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

tism —  that  it  provides  in  no  way  for  them.  It  neither  puts 
them  in  nor  out  of  the  church.  The  ingenuity  of  the  prince 
of  darkness  can  find  no  allusion  to  infants  in  the  commis- 
sion. We  care  nothing  for  infant  membership,  so  far  as  this 
controversy  is  concerned.  That  may  be  as  true,  as  we  know 
and  can  prove  it  to  be  false  and  unscriptural,  and  still  it 
would  not  prove  that  the  Savior  commanded  the  baptism  of 
infants  when  he  told  his  apostles  to  make  disciples,  baptizing 
them.  Our  Presbyterian  brethren,  who  are  the  authors  of 
this  argument,  do  not,  indeed,  initiate  infants  into  the  church 
by  baptism.  Their  doctrine  is,  that  the  infants  of  believers 
(and  they  baptize  no  others)  are  born  members  of  the 
church.  They  can  not  baptize  an  infant  that  is  not  in  the 
church.  Their  Larger  Catechism  says:  "Baptism  is  not  to 
be  administered  to  any  that  are  out  of  the  visible  church, 
and  so  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise,  till  they  pro- 
fess their  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him;  but  infants 
descending  from  parents,  either  both  or  but  one  of  them, 
professing  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him,  are,  in  that 
respect,  within  the  covenant,  and  are  to  be  baptized."* 
Their  Confession  of  Faith  tells  us,  that  the  baptism  ordained 
by  Jesus  Christ  (and  by  this  reference  is  had  to  the  com- 
mission) is  for  the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized  into 
the  visible  church,  and  of  course  can  have  no  allusion  to  the 
baptism  of  infants,  who  are  not  admitted  into  the  church  by 
baptism,  but  are  in  the  church  previous  to  the  reception  of 
that  rite.  By  their  own  showing,  no  persons  can  be  admitted 
into  the  church,  "  till  they  profess  their  faith  in  Christ  and 
obedience  to  him."  So  infants  are  not  baptized  by  the  com- 
mission, our  opponents  being  witnesses.  It  is  the  baptism 
of  infants  by  the  commission,  and  not  their  membership  by 
:;:  Ana.  to  Quest.,  166. 


HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  15 

birth,  which  is  the  matter  in  hand.  The  commission  cer- 
tainly turns  no  one  out  of  the  church ;  nor  was  it  ever 
given  for  the  baptism  of  church  members.  A  law  to  baptize 
disciples  is  not  a  law  for  the  admission  of  infants  into  the 
church.  This  is  self-evident;  it  is  also  conceded  by  the 
standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  It  is  superfluous, 
then,  to  waste  ink  in  its  proof. 

It  is  clearly  evident,  then,  that  infants  can  not  be  bap- 
tized by  the  commission.  This  was  the  great  law  under 
which  the  apostles  and  primitive  ministers  acted  in  their 
administrations  of  baptism.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  show 
that  their  plan  was  to  make  disciples,  then  to  baptize  them, 
then  to  teach  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  Jesus 
had  commanded.  Every  where,  we  read  that  he  that  believed 
was  baptized.  Every  church  that  they  organized  was  com- 
posed of  disciples  or  believers,  and  not  of  believers  and  their 
children.  There  is  not  the  remotest  allusion  to  an  infant  in 
any  baptism  recorded  in  the  Bible.  Our  Pedo-baptist  friends 
have  searched  in  vain  for  a  passage  of  Scripture  which  men- 
tions their  practice.  They  all  concede  that  there  is  no 
express  precept  or  example  to  favor  it  in  the  Bible.  As  the 
apostles  were  governed  solely  by  the  commission,  in  all  their 
baptisms,  of  course  they  did  not  baptize  infants.  If  the  age 
and  character  of  their  subjects  were  in  no  case  recorded,  we 
would  know  that  they  were  disciples  or  believers,  because 
they  were  authorized  to  baptize  no  others  in  the  name  of 
the  Trinity.  In  this  way,  we  could  meet  and  confound  our 
opponents  respecting  the  several  cases  of  household  baptisms 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.  The  household  of  Cor- 
nelius is  the  first  that  is  mentioned.  True,  we  have  the 
clear  testimony  of  the  inspired  penman  that  they  were  all 
disciples  before  baptism.     It  is  written   concerning  them: 


46  HISTORY   OP   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

"Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  bap- 
tized who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we?  And 
he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
But  would  we  not  have  been  compelled  to  conclude  from  the 
commission,  even  if  this  had  not  been  written,  that  they  were 
disciples  or  believers?  Most  assuredly,  unless  we  were  pre- 
pared to  charge  upon  the  apostle  a  most  flagrant  violation  of 
the  last  instructions  of  his  divine  Master. 

And-  so  with  the  vaunted  case  of  the  baptism  of  Lydia 
and  her  household.  That  case  is  thus  recorded:  "And  on 
the  Sabbath  we  went  out  of  the  city  by  a  river  side,  where 
prayer  was  wont  to  be  made,  and  we  sat  down  and  spake  unto 
the  women  ivho  resorted  thither.  [And  the  commission  says, 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.]  And  a  certain  woman, 
named  Lydia,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  who  worshipped  God, 
heard  us;  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended 
unto  the  things  that  were  spoken  of  Paul.  [She  was  made  a 
disciple.]  And  when  she  was  baptized  [and  the  commission 
commands  the  baptism  of  disciples],  and  her  household,  she 
besought  us,  saying,  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to 
the  Lord,  come  into  my  house  and  abide  there."  Acts  xvi. 
13—15.  There  is  no  controversy  respecting  the  baptism  of 
Lydia.  It  is  confessed  on  all  hands  that  she  was  baptized 
agreeably  to  the  commission ;  the  only  question  of  inquiry 
is  respecting  her  household.  Who  composed  her  family  we 
are  not  told ;  and  Pedo-baptists,  eager  to  find  something  to 
favor  their  cause,  have  imagined  it  was  made  up  of  infants! 
But  one  thing  is  certain,  if  her  family  were  baptized  by  the 
same  law  that  she  was,  then  they  were  disciples  or  believers; 
and  if  they  were  not  baptized  by  this  law,  by  what  law  were 
they  baptized?  That  nothing  is  said  about  their  faith  or 
discipleship  signifies  nothing,  if  it  be  true  that  they  were 


HISTORY    OP   INFANT    BAPTISM.  47 

baptized  according  to  the  commission.  We  are  just  as  cer- 
tain that  John  baptized  the  people  in  Enon,  confessing  their 
sins,  as  that  he  thus  baptized  in  Jordan,  although  the  Scrip- 
tures are  silent  upon  the  subject;  because  his  baptism  was 
unto  repentance,  and  the  law  governing  it  required  a  con- 
fession of  sins.  Even  Pedo-baptists  do  not  hesitate  to 
believe  that  G-aius,  whom  Paul  baptized  at  Corinth  (1  Cor.  i. 
4),  was  a  believer  before  baptism,  although  it  is  not  so  stated 
any  where  in  the  New  Testament.  And  why?  Because, 
say  they,  the  commission  requires  faith  of  adults,  and  Gaius 
was  an  adult.  But  we  have  shown  that  the  commission 
knows  nothing  of  any  subjects  of  baptism  except  disciples  or 
believers — that  its  requisitions  of  every  one  are  the  same; 
and  that,  consequently,  every  one  baptized  according  to  the 
commission,  is  a  disciple  or  believer.  We  grant  that  it  is 
not  said  that  Lydia's  family  believed,  nor  is  it  said  that  she 
believed  for  them — that  they  were  baptized  upon  her  faith 
or  the  faith  of  godfathers  or  godmothers.  Baptists  suppose 
that  they  believed  for  themselves ;  but  Pedo-baptists  suppose 
that  Lydia  or  some  of  her  friends  believed  for  them.  The 
Baptists  predicate  their  supposition  upon  the  fact  that  the 
apostles  did  not  disregard  the  commission,  and  hence  did  not 
baptize  those  who  were  not  disciples  or  believers ;  but  the 
Pedo-baptists  presume  that  Lydia's  household  were  baptized 
by  a  law  which  did  not  require  personal  faith  or  discipleship, 
but  by  a  law  that  allowed  of  faith  and  discipleship  by  proxy ! 
The  simple  question  then,  is,  By  what  law  were  they 
baptized?  If  by  the  commission,  then  they  were  disciples 
or  believers;  for  it  authorizes  the  baptism  of  no  others,  and 
is  wholly  silent  respecting  vicarious  discipleship,  or  faith  by 
imputation.  And  what  other  law  for  baptism  besides  the 
commission  has  God  ordained?     If  there  is  any  law  for  the 


18  HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

baptism  of  those  who  believe  by  proxy,  or  who  have  their 
parents'  faith  imputed  to  them,  then  we  demand  its  produc- 
tion. We  deny  its  existence.  This  would  be  another  bap- 
tism, wholly  distinct  in  its  character  from  that  ordained  in 
the  commission.     But  there  is  but  "one  baptism." 

We  have,  indeed,  ample  testimony  that  Lydia's  household 
was  not  composed  of  infants;  for  it  is  recorded  in  the  40th 
verse  of  this  chapter,  that  Paul  and  Silas  "entered  into  the 
house  of  Lydia,  and  when  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  they 
comforted  them  and  departed."  They  were  "brethren," 
capable  of  being  "comforted,"  and  of  course  not  infanta. 
But  we  do  not  need  this  testimony;  for  if  it  had  never  been 
given,  we  would  plant  ourselves  upon  the  commission,  and 
quench  all  the  fiery  darts  of  our  adversaries.  Our  feet  would 
be  upon  a  rock  that  could  not  be  moved.  The  apostles  did 
not  violate  the  commission.  They  were  faithful  servants  of 
their  divine  Master.  You  command  your  servant  to  go  and 
collect  in  a  certain  house,  twelve  boys  of  not  more  than  ten 
years  of  age;  he  goes,  and  after  a  time  returns,  and  says, 
"the  boys  are  in  the  house; "  would  you  not  understand  him 
to  mean  that  he  had  obeyed  your  orders?  and  would  you  not 
expect  to  find  twelve  boys  of  not  more  than  ten  years  of  age 
in  the  house?  Jesus  sent  his  apostles  to  preach  the  gospel, 
to  baptize  disciples;  and  they  report  that  they  baptized  cer- 
tain persons  at  Philippi;  and  we  know,  if  they  did  what 
they  were  commanded,  that  the  persons  baptized  were  disci- 
ples. This  is  too  plain  a  proposition  —  it  is  too  common  a 
principle  of  every  day  life,  to  need  further  illustration.  All 
must  feel  its  force,  and  the  most  ingenious  can  not  evade  its 
point. 

Those  who  adduce  the  household  of  Lydia  to  sustain 
Infant  Baptism  have  a  great  work  to  perform  to  make  it 


HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  49 

subserve  their  purposes.  They  must  prove  not  only  that  she 
had  infants,  but  that  they  were  baptized  upon  her  faith,  or 
upon  the  faith  of  sponsors,  which  no  one  has  ever  done. 
Indeed,  it  is  a  task  which  the  most  strenuous  advocates  of 
Infant  Baptism  have  never  undertaken.  Had  Lydia  any 
children?  It  is  no  where  said  that  she  had.  If  she  had 
children,  were  they  infants?  The  Scriptures  are  silent  on 
this  point.  If  she  had  infants,  did  she  bring  them  with  her 
several  hundred  miles  to  Philippi?  If  she  did,  it  is  not  in 
evidence.  But  admitting  all  these  things,  is  it  in  proof  that 
they  were  baptized  upon  her  faith,  or  the  faith  of  sponsors? 
Why  then  should  this  case  ever  be  adverted  to  in  proof  of 
Infant  Baptism?  It  can  prove  nothing  for  it,  even  if  we 
had  not  the  positive  testimony  of  the  apostolic  commission 
against  it. 

The  inspired  writers,  as  if  foreseeing  that  in  the  latter 
days  an  improper  use  would  be  made  of  the  household  bap- 
tisms which  occurred  in  the  apostolic  age,  have  been  careful 
to  show  that  they  were  in  exact  accordance  with  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  Savior,  or  at  least  that  there  were  no  infants  in 
them.  The  case  of  the  Philippian  jailer  and  his  household 
is  in  point:  Paul  and  Silas  "spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house  [preached  the  gospel 
to  them].  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night 
and  washed  their  stripes ;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his, 
straightway.  And  when  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house, 
he  set  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced  believing  in  Grod,  with 
all  his  house."  Acts  xvi.  30-34.  This  was  apostolic  prac- 
tice. The  households  they  baptized  were  believers  or  dis- 
ciples, as  the  Lord  commanded.  Again  we  read:  "And 
Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  believed  on  the 

Lord  with  all  his  house;  and  many  of  the  Corinthians  hear- 

13        J 


50  HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTI8M. 

ing,  believed  and  were  baptized."    Acts  xviii.  8.     Here  is 
another  household  of  disciples  or  believers. 

Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians :  "  I  baptized  also  the  house 
of  Stephanus."  1  Cor.  i.  16.  The  faith  of  this  household  is 
not  mentioned  any  more  than  that  of  Lydia's;  and  yet  it 
was  not  composed  of  infants,  for  in  another  part  of  the  same 
epistle,  Paul  says:  "Ye  know  the  house  of  Stephanus,  that 
it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  addicted 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints."  1  Cor.  xvi.  15. 
Did  these  persons  believe  by  proxy?  Were  they  baptized  on 
vicarious  faith?  Or  can  any  one  doubt  that  their  baptism 
was  in  accordance  with  the  commission  —  that  they  were 
made  disciples  and  baptized? 

We  deem  it  unnecessary  to  pursue  this  subject  further. 
Our  opponents  admit  that  the  New  Testament  sheds  no  light 
upon  their  cause.  They  represent  it  as  an  opaque  body, 
and  try  to  irradiate  it  by  throwing  upon  it  the  light  of  the 
Old  Testament,  or  of  Jewish  superstition.  But  this  we  have 
shown  to  be  insufficient — their  light  comes  from  too  great  a 
distance,  and  falls  short  of  the  object.  The  fact  which  all 
must  concede,  that  baptism  in  the  apostolic  age  was  admin- 
istered according  to  the  commission,  renders  abortive  every 
effort  to  prove  that  Infant  Baptism  then  prevailed.  And 
hence  Dr.  Wall,  in  his  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  pretends 
to  find  no  instance  of  its  practice  by  the  apostles  or  primi- 
tive ministers.  The  utmost  that  he  attempts  to  prove  is, 
that  inasmuch  as  the  Jews  baptized  the  infants  of  proselytes, 
therefore,  it  is  possible  that  John  the  Baptist  and  the  apos- 
tles might  have  baptized  infants !  And  such  reasoning, 
which  has  no  foundation  in  truth  or  sound  logic,  he  was 
forced  to  substitute  for  history.  He  could  not  find  the  first 
instance   of  Infant   Baptism   in   all   the   apostolic  age,   and 


HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  51 

hence  his  history  of  that  period  is  sheer  fancy  and  conjec- 
ture. The  whole  New  Testament  record  of  baptism  is  that 
of  disciples  or  believers.  It  gives  no  law  for  its  administra- 
tion to  any  others,  and  it  relates  the  baptism  of  no  others. 
If  others  were  baptized,  it  should  have  been  recorded,  that 
the  man  of  God  might,  from  the  Scriptures,  be  thoroughly 
furnished  unto  all  good  works.  If  it  was  right  to  baptize 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  then  our  Savior  would  have  said  so  when  he 
sent  his  ministers  into  all  the  world,  to  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature.  But  in  the  absence  of  both  of  these, 
where  there  is  neither  New  Testament  precept  nor  example, 
we  can  not  receive  any  thing  as  an  ordinance  of  the  gospel 
church. 


62  HISTORY   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER   V. 

Hitherto  we  have  walked  in  the  light.  We  have  had  a 
sure  word  of  prophecy  to  conduct  us  to  conclusions.  We 
have  sat  at  the  feet  of  masters  divinely  inspired  to  teach  us 
every  good  word  and  work.  Celestial  splendor  has  illumined 
our  pathway.  We  traversed  the  early  history  of  the  church, 
conducted  by  apostles  and  other  holy  men,  full  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  But  we  have  now  to  depend  upon  other  guides. 
The  light  of  inspiration  no  longer  shines  upon  us.  Men  as 
fallible  as  ourselves,  their  minds  directed  only  by  the  uncer- 
tain and  unassisted  guidance  of  human  reason,  are  now  to  be 
our  leaders.  We  no  longer  remain  disciples.  We  can  not, 
and  dare  not,  yield  implicit  credence  to  whatever  our  new 
masters  may  choose  to  utter.  We  stand  boldly  in  their  pre- 
sence, feeling  that  they  are  men  as  liable  to  err  as  ourselves, 
and  resolved  to  receive  nothing  that  they  may  tell  us  is  from 
God,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures.  We  are 
sure  that  whatever  the  Almighty  esteemed  important  to  com- 
municate to  man,  he  has  given  us  in  his  holy  word.  The 
Bible  contains  every  line  and  syllable  written  by  inspiration ; 
and  by  means  of  the  Scriptures,  "the  man  of  God  may  be 
perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works."  We 
scorn  as  an  imposter  every  man  that  has  lived  since  the  days 
of  the  apostles,  who  professes  to  come  with  a  new  message 
from  heaven.  Though  all  men  since  the  "amen"  was  affixed 
to  the  Revelation  should  tell  us  that  Infant  Baptism  should 
be  practiced  as  a  divine  institution,  although  not  commanded 


HISTORT   OP   INFANT   BAPTISM.  53 

in  the  Bible,  we  should  disregard  their  mandate.  Aye,  we 
would  gainsay  an  angel  from  heaven,  if  he  brought  to  us 
any  other  doctrine  than  that  which  is  delivered  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. God  speaks  to  us  in  the  Scriptures,  and  whatever  is 
not  in  accordance  with  his  word,  whether  spoken  by  men, 
angels,  or  devils,  is  unto  us  as  the  idle  wind.  To  his  will  we 
bow  with  the  utmost  submission ;  but  to  the  will  of  man  on 
matters  pertaining  to  the  soul's  salvation — to  the  kingdom 
of  the  Son  of  God — we  give  place  by  subjection,  no,  not  for 
a  moment! 

We  premise,  then,  that  no  matter  who  defends  Infant 
Baptism  this  side  of  the  apostolic  age — no  matter  how  early 
nor  how  many  its  defenders — it  must  be  proved  by  the 
Scriptures.  Those  proofs,  we  claim  the  perfect  right  critically 
and  carefully  to  examine:  if  they  are  sufficient,  we  will  bow 
down  to  them;  if  they  are  not,  though  urged  by  some  one 
who  flourished  centuries  ago  and  was  famous  for  his  zeal 
and  knowledge,  we  shall  reject  them  and  cast  them  from  us 
without  the  slightest  hesitation.  Falsehood,  though  as  old 
as  time,  is  but  falsehood.  Besides,  God  addresses  himself  to 
all  men.  It  is  the  duty  of  all  to  search  the  Scriptures.  He 
has  not  instituted  an  order  between  himself  and  us,  to  think 
for  us,  and  to  learn  for  us  our  duty  from  his  word.  The 
privilege  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures  for  ourselves,  we  will 
resign  to  no  one  alive  or  dead,  of  ancient  or  modern  times. 
We  may  invoke  their  assistance,  but  we  must  ultimately 
determine  for  ourselves.  Of  course,  then,  when  an  indi- 
vidual alleges  that  a  doctrine  or  practice  is  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  he  must  show  it;  if  he  speak  not  according  to 
the  law  and  the  testimony,  no  matter  how  near  the  apostles 
he  lived,  we  regard  him  not. 

In   passing  from  the  writers   of  the  New  Testament  to 


54  HISTORY    OF    INFANT   BAPTISM. 

those  that  succeeded  theru,  we  are  astounded  at  the  change! 
It  is  as  if  an  individual  had  gone  from  Goshen  to  Egypt 
during  that  long  night  when  no  man  knew  his  brother. 
"While  in  other  cases  such  a  transition  is  usually  quite 
gradual,"  says  Dr.  Neander,  "in  this  case  we  find  a  sudden 
one.  Here  there  is  no  gradual  transition,  but  a  sudden 
spring;  a  remark  which  is  calculated  to  lead  us  to  a  recog- 
nition of  the  peculiar  activity  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  the 
souls  of  the  apostles."*  We  envy  no  man  his  independence 
or  strength  of  mind,  who  submits  himself  to  be  tamely  led 
by  the  opinions  of  the  apostolic  fathers.  The  Papists  and 
Puseyites,  who  contend  that  the  Scriptures  can  not  be 
understood  without  the  aids  of  these  and  similar  writers, 
manifest  as  much  simplicity  as  those  who  would  assert  the 
necessity  of  taper  light  amid  the  dazzling  radiance  of  the 
noon- day  sun.  It  will  be  necessary  to  give  many  specimens 
from  the  writings  of  the  fathers  in  the  progress  of  our 
researches,  and  our  readers  can  judge  for  themselves  as  to 
the  validity  of  the  claim  to  pre-eminence  in  divine  know- 
ledge, set  up  for  them  by  the  advocates  of  prelacy  and  papacy 
in  this  age.  We  pause  now  to  present  one  extract  from 
Clement  of  Rome,  the  most  eminent  of  the  Patres  Apostolici. 
He  is  speaking  of  the  resurrection,  and  says: 

"Let  us  consider  that  wonderful  type  of  the  resurrection, 
which  is  seen  in  the  eastern  countries — that  is  to  say, 
in  Arabia.  There  is  a  certain  bird  called  a  phoenix ;  of  this 
there  is  never  but  one  at  a  time,  and  that  lives  five  hundred 
years.  And  when  the  time  of  its  dissolution  draws  near, 
that  it  must  die,  it  makes  itself  a  nest  of  frankincense,  and 
myrrh,  and  other  spices,  into  which,  when  its  time  is  ful- 
filled, it  enters  and  dies.  But  its  flesh,  putrefying,  breeds  a 
*  Church  History,  p.  407. 


HISTORY    OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  55 

certain  worm,  which,  being  nourished  with  the  juice  of  the 
dead  bird,  brings  forth  feathers;  and  when  it  is  grown  to  a 
perfect  state,  it  takes  up  the  nest  in  which  the  bones  of  its 
parent  lie,  and  carries  it  from  Arabia  into  Egypt,  to  a  city 
called  Heliopolis;  and  flying  in  open  day  in  the  sight  of  all 
men,  lays  it  upon  the  altar  of  the  sun,  and  so  returns  from 
whence  it  came.  The  priests  then  search  into  the  records 
of  the  time,  and  find  that  it  returned  precisely  at  the  end  of 
five  hundred  years.  And  shall  we  then  think  it  to  be  any 
great  and  strange  thing  for  the  Lord  of  all  to  raise  up  those 
that  religiously  serve  him  in  the  assurance  of  a  good  faith, 
when  even  by  a  bird  he  shows  us  the  greatness  of  his  power 
to  fulfil  his  promise?"* 

This  is  a  mere  specimen.  Absurdities  more  gross  abound 
in  the  writings  of  others,  now  commended  to  us  as  our  neces- 
sary guides  in  the  work  of  rightly  dividing  God's  word ! 
And  are  the  Christians  of  this  age  asked  to  bow  submissively 
to  the  instructions  of  such  babes  in  knowledge?  Are  we  to 
be  insultingly  told,  that  our  minds  are  inadequate  to  under- 
stand the  Scriptures,  unless  possessed  of  the  instructions 
imparted  by  the  victims  of  such  monstrous  fables? 

Of  the  writings  of  the  immediate  successors  of  the  apostles, 
but  few  have  escaped  the  ravages  of  time.  The  writings  of 
only  five,  called  'Apostolic  Fathers,"  are  claimed  by  the 
learned  to  have  come  down  to  us,  viz.,  Clement  of  Rome, 
Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Barnabas,  and  Hermas.  And  it  is  much 
debated  whether  we  have  indeed  the  writings  of  these  men, 
or  of  impostors  and  pretenders  who  assumed  their  names  — 
a  fraud  of  general  prevalence  and  considered  quite  innocent, 
a  few  centuries  subsequent  to  the  apostolic  age.  It  is  gener- 
ally conceded  that  most  of  what  bears  the  names  of  some  of 

*  1  Corinthians,  section  12. 


56  HISTORY   OP   INFANT    BAPTISM. 

these  fathers,  is  not  theirs;  while  some  small  pieces  are 
believed  by  a  majority  of  the  learned  to  be  authentic. 
These  latter  we  shall  consider  and  qnote  as  genuine.  The 
providence  which  has  suffered  so  little  to  escape  destruction, 
was  prompted  perhaps  by  a  foresight  of  the  mischievous  uses 
that  would  be  made  of  them,  and  to  lead  the  church  of  Christ 
to  depend  alone  upon  that  volume  which  is  able  to  make  us 
wise  unto  salvation. 

But  while  we  refuse,  emphatically,  to  follow  with  blind 
faith  whatever  the  apostolic  fathers  may  say;  while  our  feel- 
ings—  prompted  alike  by  reason  and  religion  —  revolt  at 
such  servileness,  we  are  far  from  rejecting  their  writings  as 
wholly  unworthy  of  attention  and  credit.  Although  to 
minds  endued  with  Christian  knowledge,  as  all  minds  in 
Christendom  might  be  now,  many  of  their  mistakes  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  Scriptures  must  appear  puerile  and  even  con- 
temptible; yet  all  will  recognize  much  gospel  truth  irradiat- 
ing their  pages,  making  them  appear  bright  indeed,  when 
contrasted  with  the  ebon  nonsense  of  pagan  superstition  and 
Jewish  tradition.  Their  writings  are  valuable,  too,  as  fur- 
nishing us  the  means  to  ascertain  the  secret  springs  to  that 
mass  of  corruption  and  monstrous  mistakes,  which  for  so 
many  centuries  brought  reproach  upon  the  name  of  our  reli- 
gion. And  many  allowances,  too,  should  be  made  on  account 
of  their  education,  and  for  their  want  of  being  thoroughly 
indoctrinated  in  the  Christian  religion.  The  early  training 
of  the  mind  —  the  principles  it  first  imbibes — will  ever 
retain  an  influence.  That  influence  may  be  weakened,  it 
may  be  subdued,  and  even  imprisoned  and  bound,  but  it 
can  never  be  utterly  destroyed. 

The  Patres  Apostolici  were  trained  in  the  schools  of 
heathen  philosopy  or  of  Jewish  rabbinicalism.     The  religion 


HISTORY    OP    INFANT   BAPTISM.  57 

amid  which  they  were  reared,  was  gross  materialism.  The 
gods  of  the  heathen,  at  whose  shrines  the  million  bowed, 
were  "gods  whose  attributes  were  rage,  revenge,  or  lust." 
They  were  beings  or  creatures  possessed  of  the  parts  and 
passions  of  men ;  while  the  masses  looked  upon  the  material 
of  which  their  idols  were  composed — the  wood,  the  brass, 
the  silver,  or  the  gold — as  endowed  with  intelligence,  and 
capable  of  hearing  and  answering  their  supplications.  And 
the  Jews,  too,  had  corrupted  the  purity  and  simplicity  of 
their  original  institutions.  They  observed  the  law  with  a 
confident  expectation,  that  by  rites  and  ceremonies  merely, 
they  would  become  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God.  The 
fathers  had  learned  that  the  kingdom  which  the  Lord  Jesus 
set  up,  was  not  of  this  world — that  it  came  not  by  observa- 
tion—  that  it  consisted  not  "in  meat  and  drink;  but  righte- 
ousness, and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost"  —  and  that 
God  was  a  spirit,  and  must  be  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in 
truth.  To  combat  the  errors  of  their  education,  and  to  sub- 
vert the  materialism  which  was  hurrying  so  many  around 
them,  through  folly  and  superstition,  to  an  eternal  over- 
throw, they  ran  to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  advocated  an 
idealism,  which  led  them  into  the  wildest  theories  of  inter- 
pretation. 

And  the  schools  of  pagan  philosophy  furnished  them 
with  fellow-champions  against  the  grovelling  doctrine  of  the 
materialists.  Many  learned  men  among  the  heathen  were 
compelled,  by  good  sense,  to  rise  up  and  condemn  the  follies 
and  frauds  of  the  prevailing  religion.  Former  theories  were 
falling  rapidly  before  their  attacks.  Some  were  opposing 
wholly,  and  others  were  re-modeling  only,  the  systems  of 
religion,  time-honored  among  them.  The  exterminator  and 
the  reformer  used  the  weapons  of  idealism  in  support  of 


68  HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTI8M. 

their  sentiments,  and  thus  the  learning,  the  wit,  and  the 
eloquence  of  the  world  were  brought  to  bear  in  one  united 
assault  upon  the  materialism  which  had  so  long  prevailed, 
and  it  was  rapidly  falling  before  the  attack.  The  apostolic 
fathers,  unused  to  the  Christian  armor,  readily  availed  them- 
selves of  the  weapons  so  ingeniously  and  successfully  wielded 
by  the  philosophers,  and  in  the  exercise  of  which  they  had 
been  trained  from  their  infancy.  The  simple  truths  of  the 
gospel,  so  mighty  in  the  hands  of  the  apostles,  were  discarded 
as  inadequate  to  meet  the  giant  form  of  error,  stalking  in 
horrid  strides  over  the  nations;  and  the  Christian  champion 
entered  the  lists  against  him,  brandishing  the  weapons  of 
this  world — the  theories  and  speculations  of  a  vain  philoso- 
phy! It  was  David  in  the  armor  of  Saul.  In  their  ren- 
counter with  the  enemy — in  attacking  and  defending — 
we  discover  the  want  of  fitness  and  adaptation  in  their 
weapons. 

Some  of  the  philosophers,  as  we  have  said,  in  opposing  the 
sensualism  of  the  times,  believed  it  necessary  to  vindicate 
the  propriety  of  religion.  They  were  unwilling  that  every 
altar  should  be  thrown  down.  They  wanted  the  moral  cour- 
age to  charge  folly  upon  all  the  past  generations  of  men. 
Hence  they  affirmed  that  the  prevailing  religion  was  once 
strictly  spiritual,  but  had  degenerated  into  sensualism;  and 
that  a  reform,  and  not  an  overthrow,  was  all  that  was  called 
for.  To  establish  this  startling  proposition,  required  all 
their  ingenuity;  but  the  sophistry  of  the  schools  was  suffi- 
cient to  answer  their  purposes.  They  assumed  that  all  the 
forms  of  religion  were  originally  adopted  solely  as  symbols 
of  spiritual  things  —  as  hieroglyphical  representations  of  a 
pure  idealism  —  and  were  resorted  to  by  some  unknown 
philosophers,  in  ages  of  which  no  record  existed,  for  the 


HISTORY    OF   INFANT   BAPTISM.  59 

benefit  of  the  masses.  This  enabled  Porphyry  to  defend  the 
use  of  images,  pretty  much  as  the  Papists  do : 

"By  forms  perceptible  to  the  senses  the  ancients  repre- 
sented God  and  his  powers,  and  they  imaged  the  invisible 
by  the  visible,  for  those  who  had  learnt  to  read,  in  images 
as  in  books,  a  writing  which  treats  of  God.  We  can  not, 
therefore,  wonder  if  the  most  ignorant  can  see  in  statues 
nothing  but  wood  and  stone,  just  as  those  who  are  ignorant 
of  the  art  of  writing  can  see  nothing  but  stone  and  monu- 
ments, nothing  but  wood  in  tables,  and  nothing  but  a  scroll 
of  papyrus  in  books."* 

The  effort  of  this  class  of  philosophers  was  to  impart  vital- 
ity to  the  pagan  religion  by  a  refined  spiritualization.  In 
this  respect,  they  were  imitated  by  the  fathers  relative  to  the 
rites  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  fathers  looked  upon  Chris- 
tianity as  the  realization  of  the  philosophers'  dreams  —  as 
the  true  idealism,  sent  of  heaven  to  subvert  the  materialism 
which  had  disgraced  the  pagans  and  led  astray  the  Jews. 
But  they  were  met  at  the  outset  by  numerous  Jewish  doc- 
tors, appealing  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  alleging  that  the 
rites  and  ceremonies  established  there,  and  which  of  them- 
selves purified  the  soul,  plainly  taught  that  the  extreme 
idealism  then  so  popular  was  not  countenanced  by  the  word 
of  God.  The  fathers  met  and  answered  this  objection,  by 
applying  those  rules  of  interpretation  used  by  the  Platonists 
in  defence  of  the  pagan  worship.  They  spiritualized  the 
rites  of  the  Old  Testament.  This,  in  their  judgment,  was 
necessary  in  order  to  establish  the  divine  original  of  that 
Testament.  They  asserted  that  the  religion  of  the  New 
Testament  was  adapted  to  the  principles  of  the  true  philoso- 
phy, and  that  Judaism  was  only  a  symbol  of  it,  and  capable 
*  Neander's  Church  History,  p.  21. 


60  HISTORY   OP   INFANT    BAPTISM. 

of  the  same  spiritual  meaning.      In  the  following  "Frag 
ment,"  imputed  to  Clement  of  Rome,  who  is  usually  placed 
at  the  head  of  the  Patres  Apostolici,  you  will  see  how  far  he 
was  infected  with  the  idealism  of  the  age : 

"For  the  Lord  himself  being  asked  by  a  certain  person, 
when  his  kingdom  should  come?  answered,  When  two  shall 
be  one,  and  that  which  was  without  as  that  which  is  within ; 
and  the  male  with  the  female,  neither  male  nor  female. 
Now,  two  are  one,  when  we  speak  the  truth  to  each  other, 
and  there  is,  without  hypocrisy,  one  soul  in  two  bodies. 
And  that  which  is  without  as  that  which  is  within;  —  He  means 
this :  he  calls  the  soul  that  which  is  within,  and  the  body 
that  which  is  without.  As  therefore  the  body  appears,  so  let 
thy  soul  be  seen  by  its  good  works.  And  the  male  with  the 
female,  neither  male  nor  female; — He  means  this:  he  calls 
our  anger  the  male,  our  concupiscence  the  female.  When, 
therefore,  a  man  is  come  to  such  a  pass  that  he  is  subject 
neither  to  the  one  nor  the  other  of  these  (both  of  which, 
through  the  prevalence  of  custom,  and  an  evil  education, 
cloud  and  darken  the  reason),  but  rather,  having  dispelled 
the  mists  arising  from  them,  and  being  full  of  shame,  shall 
by  repentance  have  united  both  his  soul  and  spirit  in  the 
obedience  of  reason;  and  then,  as  Paul  says,  there  is  in  us 
neither  male  nor  female." 

We  will  present  a  few  specimens  from  Barnabas,  to  show 
the  mode  of  spiritualizing  the  Old  Testament.     He  says : 

"Forasmuch  then  as  our  Savior  was  to  appear  in  the  flesh, 
and  suffer,  his  passion  was  hereby  foretold.  For  thus  saith 
the  prophet  against  Israel:  Wo  be  to  their  soul,  because 
they  have  taken  wicked  counsel  against  themselves,  saying, 
Let  us  lay  snares  for  the  righteous,  because  he  is  unprofit- 
able to  us.     Moses  also  in  like  manner  speaketh  to  them : 


HISTORY   OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  61 

Behold,  thus  saith  the  Lord  God:  Enter  ye  into  the  good 
land  of  which  the  Lord  hath  sworn  to  Abraham,  and  Isaac, 
and  Jacob,  that  he  would  give  it  to  you,  and  possess  it,  a 
land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey.  Now,  what  the  spiritual 
meaning  of  this  is,  learn ;  it  is  as  if  it  had  been  said :  Put 
your  trust  in  Jesus,  who  shall  be  manifested  to  you  in  the 
flesh.  For  man  is  the  earth  which  suffers;  forasmuch  as  out 
of  the  substance  of  the  earth  Adam  was  formed.  What, 
therefore,  does  he  mean  when  he  says,  into  a  good  land  flow- 
ing with  milk  and  honey?  Blessed  be  our  Lord,  who  has 
given  us  wisdom,  and  a  heart  to  understand  his  secrets. 
For  so  says  the  prophet:  Who  shall  understand  the  hard 
saying  of  the  Lord?  But  he  that  is  wise,  and  intelligent, 
and  that  loves  his  Lord.  Seeing  therefore  he  has  renewed 
us  by  the  remission  of  our  sins,  he  has  put  us  into  another 
frame,  that  we  should  have  souls  like  those  of  children, 
forming  us  again  himself  by  the  Spirit."* 

<;And  therefore  the  Scripture  again  speaks  concerning  our 
ears,  that  God  has  circumcised  them,  together  with  our  hearts. 
For  thus  saith  the  Lord  by  the  holy  prophets:  By  the  hear- 
ing of  the  ear  they  obeyed  me.  And  again :  They  who  are 
afar  off,  shall  hear  and  understand  what  things  I  have  done. 
And  again:  Circumcise  your  hearts,  saith  the  Lord.  And 
again  he  saith:  Hear,  0  Israel!  for  thus  saith  the  Lord  thy 
God.  And  again  the  Spirit  of  God  prophesieth,  saying: 
Who  is  there  that  would  live  for  ever,  let  him  hear  the  voice 
of  my  Son.  And  again:  Hear,  O  heaven,  and  give  ear,  0 
earth !  because  the  Lord  has  spoken  these  things  for  a  wit- 
ness. And  again  he  saith:  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  ye 
princes  of  the  people.  And  again :  Hear,  0  children !  the 
voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness.  Wherefore  he  has 
*  Section  5. 


62  HISTORY   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

circumcised  our  ears,  that  we  should  hear  his  word  and 
believe.  But  as  for  that  circumcision,  in  which  the  Jews 
trust,  it  is  abolished.  For  the  circumcision  of  which  God 
spake,  was  not  of  the  flesh.  But  they  have  trangressed  his 
commands,  because  the  evil  one  hath  deceived  them.  For 
thus  God  bespeaks  them  :  Thus  saith  the  Lord  your  God 
(here  I  find  the  new  law),  sow  not  among  thorns;  but  cir- 
cumcise yourselves  to  the  Lord  your  God.  And  what  doth 
he  mean  by  this  saying?  Hearken  unto  your  Lord.  And 
again  he  saith :  Circumcise  the  hardness  of  your  heart,  and 
harden  not  your  neck.  And  again :  Behold,  saith  the  Lord, 
all  the  nations  are  uncircumcised  (they  have  not  lost  their 
foreskin) ;  but  this  people  is  uncircumcised  in  heart.  But 
you  will  say,  the  Jews  were  circumcised  for  a  sign.  And  so 
are  all  the  Syrians  and  Arabians,  and  all  the  idolatrous  priests, 
but  are  they  therefore  of  the  covenant  of  Israel?  And  even  the 
Egyptians  themselves  are  circumcised.  Understand,  there- 
fore, children,  these  things  more  fully,  that  Abraham,  who 
was  the  first  that  brought  in  circumcision,  looked  forward  in 
the  Spirit  to  Jesus,  having  received  the  mystery  of  three 
letters.  For  the  Scripture  says,  that  Abraham  circumcised 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  men  of  his  house.  But  what, 
therefore,  was  the  mystery  that  was  made  known  unto  him? 
Mark,  first  the  eighteen,  and  next  the  three  hundred.  For 
the  numeral  letters  of  ten  and  eight  are  J.  H.  And  these 
denote  Jesus.  And  because  the  cross  was  that  by  which  we 
were  to  find  grace,  therefore  he  adds  three  hundred;  the 
note  of  which  is  T  (the  figure  of  his  cross).  Wherefore,  by 
two  letters,  he  signified  Jesus,  and  by  the  third  his  cross. 
He  who  has  put  the  engrafted  gift  of  his  doctrine  within  us, 
knows  that  I  never  taught  to  any  one  a  more  certain  truth ; 
but  I  trust  ye  are  worthy  of  it."*  —  Section  10. 


HISTORY   OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  63 

"But  why  did  Moses  say,  Ye  shall  not  eat  the  swine, 
neither  the  eagle,  nor  the  hawk,  nor  the  crow,  nor  any  fish 
that  hath  not  a  scale  upon  him?  I  answer,  that  in  the 
spiritual  sense,  he  comprehended  three  doctrines  that  were 
to  be  gathered  from  thence.  Besides  which  he  says  to  them 
in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  And  I  will  give  my  statutes 
unto  this  people.  Wherefore  it  is  not  the  command  of  God 
that  they  should  not  eat  these  things;  but  Moses  in  the 
Spirit  spake  unto  them.  Now  the  sow  he  forbade  them  to 
eat;  meaning  thus  much :  thou  shalt  not  join  thyself  to  such 
persons  as  are  like  unto  swine;  who,  whilst  they  live  in 
pleasure,  forget  their  God,  but  when  any  want  pinches  them, 
then  they  know  the  Lord;  as  the  sow,  when  she  is  full, 
knows  not  her  master,  but  when  she  is  hungry,  she  makes  a 
noise,  and  being  again  fed,  is  silent.  Neither,  says  he,  shalt 
thou  eat  the  eagle,  nor  the  hawk,  nor  the  kite,  nor  the  crow; 
that  is,  thou  shalt  not  keep  company  with  such  kind  of  men 
as  know  not  how,  by  their  labor  and  sweat,  to  get  themselves 
food,  but  injuriously  ravish  away  the  things  of  others,  and 
watch  how  to  lay  snares  for  them,  when  at  the  same  time 
they  appear  to  live  in  perfect  innocence.  ***** 
Moses  therefore,  speaking  as  concerning  meats,  delivered 
indeed  three  great  precepts  to  them  in  the  spiritual  significa- 
tion of  those  commands.  But  they,  according  to  the  desires 
of  the  flesh,  understood  him  as  if  he  only  meant  it  of  meats. 
And,  therefore,  David  took  aright  the  knowledge  of  his 
threefold  command,  saying,  in  like  manner,  'Blessed  is  the 
man  thatwalketh  not  in  the  counsel  of  the  ungodly;'  as  the 
fishes  before  mentioned,  in  the  bottom  of  the  deep  in  darkness. 
'Nor  stood  in  the  way  of  sinners,'  as  they  who  seem  to  fear 
the  Lord,  but  yet  sin,  as  the  sow.  'And  hath  not  sat  in  the 
seat  of  the  scorners,'  as  those  birds  who  sit  and  watch  that 


64  HISTORY   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

they  may  devour.  Here  you  have  the  law  concerning  meat 
perfectly  set  forth,  and  according  to  the  true  knowledge  of 
it."* 

These  examples  might  be  greatly  multiplied;  but  these 
are  enough  for  our  purpose,  which  was  simply  to  show  the 
extremes  to  which  opposition  to  materialism  carried  even 
good  meaning  men,  leading  them  most  grossly  to  pervert  the 
Scriptures,  and  to  contemn  the  plainest  principles  of  common 
sense. 

But  the  apostolic  fathers  found  that  baptism  was  mani- 
festly enjoined  in  the  Scriptures,  and  was  every  where  prac- 
ticed by  all  Christians.  How  was  this  ordinance  to  be 
adjusted  to  their  idealistic  system?  They  were  not  prepared 
to  reject  it  (as  some  afterwards  did)  for  the  accommodation 
of  their  doctrine.  The  obligation  to  observe  the  ordinance 
could  not  be  denied  or  evaded  by  them;  and  how  did  this 
comport  with  their  ultra  notions  respecting  a  purely  spiritual 
religion?  They  did  not  long  hesitate.  Indeed,  they  felt  in 
no  dilemma.  Their  system  of  interpretation  was  omnipotent. 
It  was  adequate  to  the  removal  of  any  difficulty,  no  matter 
how  great.  They  retained  the  ordinance,  but  relaxed  nothing 
of  their  doctrine,  by  assuming  that  baptism  was  a  great 
mystery — a  pure  idealism!  It  was  not  what  it  seemed  to  be 
to  vulgar  eyes !  It  was  a  spiritual  pool — a  laver  of  regenera- 
tion! All  the  great  mysteries  of  our  faith  and  salvation 
met  and  mingled  in  it!  It  was  the  spiritual  door  into  the 
ineffable  kingdom  of  the  Savior !  It  was  necessary  to  salva- 
tion; it  comprised  the  Spirit  of  God  and  the  blood  of  the 
Redeemer!  They  did  not  esteem  it  a  symbol.  Their  reli- 
gion had   no   symbols  —  all    these  had   been   abolished  by 

*  Section  9. 


HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  65 

Jesus,  in  blotting  out  the  handwriting  of  ordinances!     But 
we  will  quote  them  to  this  point: 

"Let  us  now  inquire  whether  the  Lord  took  care  to  mani- 
fest any  thing  beforehand  concerning  water  and  the  cross. 
Now,  for  the  former  of  these,  it  is  written  to  the  people  of 
Israel  how  they  shall  not  receive  that  baptism  which  bring9 
to  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  but  shall  institute  another  to 
themselves,  that  can  not.  For  thus  saith  the  prophet:  Be 
astonished,  0  heaven !  and  let  the  earth  tremble  at  it,  because 
the  people  have  done  two  great  and  wicked  things:  they 
have  left  me,  the  fountain  of  living  waters,  and  have  digged 
for  themselves  broken  cisterns  that  can  hold  no  water.  Is 
my  holy  mountain  Zion  a  desolate  wilderness?  For  ye  shall 
be  as  a  young  bird  when  its  nest  is  taken  away.  And  again 
the  prophet  saith:  I  will  go  before  thee,  and  will  make  plain 
the  mountains,  and  will  break  the  gates  of  brass,  and  will 
snap  in  sunder  the  bars  of  iron ;  and  will  give  the  dark,  and 
hidden,  and  invisible  treasures,  that  they  may  know  that  I 
am  the  Lord  God.  And  again :  He  shall  dwell  in  the  high 
den  of  the  strong  rock.  And  then,  what  follows  in  the  same 
prophet?  His  water  is  faithful:  ye  shall  see  the  king  with 
glory,  and  your  soul  shall  learn  the  fear  of  the  Lord.  And 
again  he  saith  in  another  prophet:  'He  that  does  these 
things  shall  be  like  a  tree  planted  by  the  currents  of  water, 
which  shall  give  its  fruit  in  its  season.  Its  leaf  also  shall 
not  wither,  and  whatsoever  he  doth  it  shall  prosper.  As 
for  the  wicked  it  is  not  so  with  them ;  but  they  are  as  the 
dust  which  the  wind  scattereth  away  from  the  face  of  the 
earth.  Therefore  the  ungodly  shall  not  stand  in  the  judg- 
ment, neither  the  sinners  in  the  council  of  the  righteous: 
for  the  Lord  knoweth  the  way  of  the  righteous,  and  the 
way  of  the  ungodly  shall  perish.       Consider  bow   he  has 

14 


66  HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

joined  both  the  cross  and  the  water  together.  For  thus  he 
saith:  'Blessed  are  they  who  put  their  trust  in  the  cross, 
descend  into  the  water;  for  they  shall  have  their  reward  in 
due  time;  then,'  saith  he,  'will  I  give  it  them.'  But  as  con- 
cerning the  present  time,  he  saith,  their  leaves  shall  not  fall ; 
meaning  thereby,  that  every  word  that  shall  go  out  of  your 
mouth,  shall  through  faith  and  charity  be  to  the  conversion 
and  hope  of  many.  In  like  manner  doth  another  prophet 
speak:  'And  the  land  of  Jacob  was  the  praise  of  all  the 
earth,'  magnifying  thereby  the  vessel  of  his  spirit.  And 
what  follows?  'And  there  was  a  river  running  on  the  right 
hand,  and  beautiful  trees  grew  up  by  it;  and  he  that  shall 
eat  of  them  shall  live  for  ever.  The  signification  of  which 
is  this:  that  we  go  down  into  the  water  full  of  sins  and 
pollutions,  but  come  up  again  bringing  forth  fruit;  having 
in  our  hearts  the  fear  and  hope  which  is  in  Jesus  by  the 
Spirit.  'And  whosoever  shall  eat  of  them  shall  live  for 
ever ; '  that  is,  whosoever  shall  hearken  to  those  who  call 
them,  shall  live  for  ever."* 

"Please  him  under  whom  ye  war,  and  from  whom  ye 
receive  your  wages.  Let  none  of  you  be  found  a  deserter; 
but  let  your  baptism  remain  as  your  arms,  your  faith  as  your 
helmet,  your  charity  as  your  spear,  your  patience  as  your 
whole  armor."  f 

"Hear,  therefore,  why  the  tower  is  built  upon  the  water; 
because  your  life  is  and  shall  be  saved  by  water.  For  it  is 
founded  by  the  almighty  and  honorable  name,  and  is  sup- 
ported by  the  invisible  power  and  virtue  of  Grod."J 

"And  I  said  unto  him :  I  have  even  now  heard  from  cer- 
tain teachers  that  there  is  no  other  repentance  beside  that 

*  Barnabas,  Section  10.  f  Ignatius  to  Polycarp,  Section  2. 

%  Hennas,  Vision  3. 


HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  67 

of  baptism,  when  we  go  down  into  the  water  and  receive  the 
forgiveness  of  our  sins;  and  that  after  that,  we  must  sin  no 
more,  but  live  in  purity.  And  he  said  unto  me,  Thou  hast 
been  rightly  informed."* 

"He  answered,  What  dost  thou  ask?  Why  did  these 
stones  come  out  of  the  deep,  and  were  placed  into  the  build- 
ing of  this  tower,  seeing  that  they  long  ago  carried  these 
holy  spirits?  It  was  necessary,  said  he,  for  them  to  ascend 
by  water,  that  they  might  be  at  rest.  For  they  could  not 
otherwise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  by  laying 
aside  the  morality  of  their  former  life.  They,  therefore, 
being  dead,  were  nevertheless  sealed  with  the  seal  of  the  Son 
of  God,  and  so  entered  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  For 
before  a  man  receives  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God,  he  is 
ordained  unto  death ;  but  when  he  receives  that  seal,  he  is 
freed  from  death,  and  assigned  unto  life.  Now  that  seal  is 
the  water  of  baptism,  into  which  men  go  down  under  the 
obligation  unto  death,  but  come  up  appointed  unto  life. 
Wherefore  to  those  also  was  the  seal  preached,  and  they 
made  use  of  it,  that  they  might  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God.  And  I  said:  Why  then,  sir,  did  these  forty  stones  also 
ascend  with  them  out  of  the  deep,  having  already  received 
that  seal?  He  answered:  Because  these  apostles  and  teach- 
ers, who  preached  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God,  dying  after 
he  had  received  his  faith  and  power,  preached  to  them  who 
were  dead  before,  and  they  gave  this  seal  to  them.  They 
went  down  therefore  into  the  water  with  them,  and  again 
came  up.  But  these  went  down  whilst  they  were  alive,  and 
came  up  again  alive;  whereas  those  who  were  before  dead, 
went  down  dead,  and  came  up  alive;  through  these  therefore 
they  received  life,  and  knew  the  Son  of  God.  for  which  cause 
*  Hernias,  Command  4. 


68  HISTORY    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

they  came  up  with  them,  and  were  fit  to  come  into  the  build- 
ing of  the  tower,  and  were  not  cut,  but  put  in  entire,  because 
they  died  in  righteousness,  and  in  great  purity,  only  this 
seal  was  wanting  to  them."* 

Thus  we  see  the  first  step  in  error  in  relation  to  baptism, 
the  cause  of  which  we  have  given,  and  all  can  readily  per- 
ceive. But  this  was  only  the  first  step;  the  apostolic  fathers 
did  not  go  far  enough  into  error  to  reach  Infant  Baptism. 
Over  their  writings,  on  this  subject,  the  same  silence  reigns, 
as  over  those  of  the  New  Testament.  They  make  not  the 
slightest  allusion  to  such  a  custom.  The  eagle  eyes  of 
Dr.  Wall  could  discover  no  support  for  his  cause  in  any 
thing  that  they  have  said.  He  does  not  produce  from 
them  the  first  particle  of  proof  to  sustain  his  darling 
system. 

It  is  not  our  purpose,  in  this  chapter,  to  cite  other  autho- 
rities than  these  fathers.  With  them  we  leave  our  readers 
for  the  present.  We  have  taken  but  the  first  step  from  the 
apostles.  We  have  but  entered  the  threshold  of  that  gloom 
which  sat  for  centuries,  dark  as  the  pall  of  death,  upon  the 
minds  of  Christendom.  We  must,  however,  penetrate  fur- 
ther and  group  longer  in  the  darkness,  before  we  find 
Infant  Baptism.  We  have  passed  over  the  first  century, 
and  have  entered  considerably  into  the  second,  and  Infant 
Baptism  is  still  invisible.  True,  we  begin  to  see  the  work- 
ings of  that  system — of  that  mystery  of  iniquity,  which 
ultimately  developed  it;  but  the  institution  itself  is  yet 
unborn.  Our  readers  should  note,  too,  the  lamentable 
degeneracy  in  doctrine  already  too  manifest.  Great  ravages 
were  committed  upon  the  simplicity  of  the  faith;  mon- 
strous absurdities,  as  our  readers  have  seen,  were  already 
*  Hermas,  Similitude  9. 


HISTORY    OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  69 

advanced  and  vindicated;  but  others  still  more  startling 
are  to  appear.  A  still  darker  cloud  must  hover  in  the 
moral  heavens ;  wilder  whims  and  fancies  must  possess  the 
minds  of  professing  Christians,  and  then  the  era  of  Infant 
Baptism  begins. 


